Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

theskepticsguide.org podcast 140

Expand Messages
  • Frank Verhoft
    Hi, Following podcast might be interesting: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=140 The third part, a long interview with
    Message 1 of 24 , Apr 1, 2008
      Hi,

      Following podcast might be interesting:
      http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=140

      The third part, a long interview with Eugenie Scott, is about the movie
      /Expelled/:
      1. How scientists get tricked
      2. The Richard Dawkins (non-)incident (and how it got 'justified'
      afterwards...)
      3. www.expelledexposed.com

      Groetjes,

      Frank



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • seekeththee
      ... movie ... Thanks for the links. I am just curious in regard to the third one that links to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 1, 2008
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Frank Verhoft
        <frank.verhoft@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > Following podcast might be interesting:
        > http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=140
        >
        > The third part, a long interview with Eugenie Scott, is about the
        movie
        > /Expelled/:
        > 1. How scientists get tricked
        > 2. The Richard Dawkins (non-)incident (and how it got 'justified'
        > afterwards...)
        > 3. www.expelledexposed.com
        >
        > Groetjes,
        >
        > Frank

        Thanks for the links. I am just curious in regard to the third one
        that links to this:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html
        "If he had known the film's premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail
        message, he would never have appeared in it. "At no time was I given
        the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said."

        Do anybody know if these scientists have a copy of that email? That is
        one thing I haven't seen. I don't see, especially these days, how
        somebody like Dawkins, or Meyers can be duped like that. Especially
        since this has happened to Dawkins before. I would think they would
        have some agreement that the interview could be taped by another
        party, and that that it will not be the basis of a creationist
        propaganda film.

        Truman
      • bingy020
        ... http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080328/31725_Bill_Allowing_Tea ... evolution? ... Who knows? All who desire to question rather than blindly accept?
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 1, 2008
          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
          <seekeththee@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
          > <bingy020@> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
          > > <seekeththee@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080328/31725_Bill_Allowing_Tea
          > > > chers_to_Question_Evolution_Advances.htm
          > > >
          > > > <<<Proponents of the bill, however, maintain that the proposal
          > > would
          > > > not permit teachings of alternative theories to evolution -
          > > > specifically intelligent design or creationism – but apply to
          > > > scientific theories critical of evolution.>>>
          > > >
          > > > Here is a question for the creationists in the group that are
          > > > familiar with this bill:
          > > >
          > > > What scientific theories are there that are critical of
          evolution?
          > > >
          > >
          > > You need to ask the scientists who have them.
          >
          > That begs the question, who are the scientists then?
          >

          Who knows? All who desire to question rather than blindly accept?

          >
          > > > <<<According to Storms, a teacher might say: "Here's the theory
          of
          > > > evolution and here are the flaws and here are the breaks. Here
          are
          > > > the people with legitimate questions. Here's what the theories
          > > are,"
          > > > the Palm Beach Post reported.>>>
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Again, here are some more questions for the creationists in the
          > > > group that are familiar with this bill:
          > > >
          > > > 1. What are the "flaws and breaks"?
          > > > 2. Who are the "people with legitimate questions"?
          > > > 3. What are their theories?
          > > >
          > >
          > > Hello,
          > >
          > > New here.
          > >
          > > I counter your question with this quesiton: what do these 37
          > > sceintists and you have to worry about?
          >
          > Welcome.
          >
          > At this point, since I don't know what the questions are, I don't
          know
          > what there is, or is not, to worry about. I am really wondering why
          > such a bill is necessary.

          Well, I am only guessing, but it might be necessary because it has
          been ruled against to teach ID and creation, perhaps? And it tends to
          be that even well respected sceintists (I am expecting a sordid reply
          here) who might see that evolution might not be as correct as is
          taught, would have legitimate questions. But asking such questions
          would immediately classs them as religious fanatic morons who do not
          understand the processes of biology (one noted professor has been
          told this, and he is a biochemistry professor teaching evolution for
          over 25 years) yet have done research and have taught and are of good
          repute otherwise and are biologists themselves.

          >
          > > If Evolution has no "flaws and breaks", then the teachers and
          people
          > > with legitimate questions (who I thought would be expected to ask
          > > quesitons, no? Aren't thinkers supposed to ask questions?) won't
          have
          > > a leg to stand on.
          >
          > I am wondering why its just evolution that is scrutinized, when all
          > theories of science have "flaws and breaks" There is no end to
          > legitimate questions, but there is a limit based on current data as
          to
          > what scientific answers there are.
          >

          Of course! Yet as more is learned, the questions are raised
          exponentially.

          > When you quit thinking, and start blindly believing, then you start
          > having problems.
          >

          Exactly my implication. All other sciences are scrutinized freely. No
          one has objections.

          But question biological evolution, where the only other alternative
          is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.

          > > Even Darwin had legitimate questions about his own theory, such
          as
          > > supposing that if a certain condition were seen, or not seen, the
          > > theory would have a problem.
          >
          > That is true, and as we see, evolution theory has been modified to
          fit
          > the data. The main part of his theory, descent with modification
          has
          > never had a problem though.
          >

          Of course. It is a broad theory that has support. Broad theories
          generally do.

          > > It is merely looking at things from all perspectives.
          >
          > Well, that would be true if one was looking at the things. The thing
          > is that those "other perspectives", just looks at those "problems"
          and
          > fails to address those "problems" along with the rest of what is no
          > problem.
          >

          How so? If I see a flaw in a theory, would it not behoove the
          theorist to repair the flaw with more research? Would it not also say
          that the rest of the theory is acceptable as supported by scientific
          evidence?

          > > Your line of reasoning sounds... dictatorial.
          >
          > It shouldn't. I was simply asking legitimate questions. If there are
          > no problems with this proposed bill, then I would think the
          reasonable
          > people that support it would not be afraid to answer such legitimate
          > questions. What is there to worry about?
          >

          I didn't say the questions did, but the reasoning behind it seems
          such.

          At any rate, if questioning a theory and all the supporting details
          is acceptable, then there would be no need for a special legal bill.
          But since questioning this particular scientific theory tends to draw
          out the religious implications behind it, it becomes a legal as well
          as academic issue.

          Your questions and reasoning also seems to imply that the theory of
          biological evolution is flawless and should be without question.

          This is the dictatorial part.

          Robert.
        • seekeththee
          ... http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080328/31725_Bill_Allowing_Tea ... proposal ... to ... are ... Well gosh, if there are no questions, then I guess we
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 1, 2008
            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
            <bingy020@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
            > <seekeththee@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
            > > <bingy020@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
            > > > <seekeththee@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            >
            http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080328/31725_Bill_Allowing_Tea
            > > > > chers_to_Question_Evolution_Advances.htm
            > > > >
            > > > > <<<Proponents of the bill, however, maintain that the
            proposal
            > > > would
            > > > > not permit teachings of alternative theories to evolution -
            > > > > specifically intelligent design or creationism – but apply
            to
            > > > > scientific theories critical of evolution.>>>
            > > > >
            > > > > Here is a question for the creationists in the group that
            are
            > > > > familiar with this bill:
            > > > >
            > > > > What scientific theories are there that are critical of
            > evolution?
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > You need to ask the scientists who have them.
            > >
            > > That begs the question, who are the scientists then?
            > >
            >
            > Who knows? All who desire to question rather than blindly accept?

            Well gosh, if there are no questions, then I guess we don't need
            this bill.

            > > > > <<<According to Storms, a teacher might say: "Here's the
            theory
            > of
            > > > > evolution and here are the flaws and here are the breaks.
            Here
            > are
            > > > > the people with legitimate questions. Here's what the
            theories
            > > > are,"
            > > > > the Palm Beach Post reported.>>>
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > Again, here are some more questions for the creationists in
            the
            > > > > group that are familiar with this bill:
            > > > >
            > > > > 1. What are the "flaws and breaks"?
            > > > > 2. Who are the "people with legitimate questions"?
            > > > > 3. What are their theories?
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > Hello,
            > > >
            > > > New here.
            > > >
            > > > I counter your question with this quesiton: what do these 37
            > > > sceintists and you have to worry about?
            > >
            > > Welcome.
            > >
            > > At this point, since I don't know what the questions are, I
            don't
            > know
            > > what there is, or is not, to worry about. I am really wondering
            why
            > > such a bill is necessary.
            >
            > Well, I am only guessing, but it might be necessary because it has
            > been ruled against to teach ID and creation, perhaps? And it tends
            to
            > be that even well respected sceintists (I am expecting a sordid
            reply
            > here) who might see that evolution might not be as correct as is
            > taught, would have legitimate questions.

            Well, if you don't know what the questions are, then I guess they
            must not be that important or relevant.


            > But asking such questions
            > would immediately classs them as religious fanatic morons who do
            not
            > understand the processes of biology (one noted professor has been
            > told this, and he is a biochemistry professor teaching evolution
            for
            > over 25 years) yet have done research and have taught and are of
            good
            > repute otherwise and are biologists themselves.

            Well it depends on the questions. Since you don't know what they
            are, then how can you say such questions would cause such a reaction?

            > > > If Evolution has no "flaws and breaks", then the teachers and
            > people
            > > > with legitimate questions (who I thought would be expected to
            ask
            > > > quesitons, no? Aren't thinkers supposed to ask questions?)
            won't
            > have
            > > > a leg to stand on.
            > >
            > > I am wondering why its just evolution that is scrutinized, when
            all
            > > theories of science have "flaws and breaks" There is no end to
            > > legitimate questions, but there is a limit based on current data
            as
            > to
            > > what scientific answers there are.
            > >
            >
            > Of course! Yet as more is learned, the questions are raised
            > exponentially.

            How can you exponential raise the number zero. We still don't know
            what questions require a bill like this.

            Its already OK to raise legitimate questions. Why do we need a bill
            for it, and why does it have to be for only evolution?


            > > When you quit thinking, and start blindly believing, then you
            start
            > > having problems.
            > >
            >
            > Exactly my implication. All other sciences are scrutinized freely.
            No
            > one has objections.

            Evolution is scrutinized freely too.


            > But question biological evolution, where the only other
            alternative
            > is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.

            No it doesn't. Go ahead and question evolution, see what happens.

            Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory, so it can't be an
            alternative.



            > > > Even Darwin had legitimate questions about his own theory,
            such
            > as
            > > > supposing that if a certain condition were seen, or not seen,
            the
            > > > theory would have a problem.
            > >
            > > That is true, and as we see, evolution theory has been modified
            to
            > fit
            > > the data. The main part of his theory, descent with
            modification
            > has
            > > never had a problem though.
            > >
            >
            > Of course. It is a broad theory that has support. Broad theories
            > generally do.

            That is because there is so much evidence for it. So that part must
            not be what is being questioned.


            > > > It is merely looking at things from all perspectives.
            > >
            > > Well, that would be true if one was looking at the things. The
            thing
            > > is that those "other perspectives", just looks at
            those "problems"
            > and
            > > fails to address those "problems" along with the rest of what is
            no
            > > problem.
            > >
            >
            > How so? If I see a flaw in a theory, would it not behoove the
            > theorist to repair the flaw with more research? Would it not also
            say
            > that the rest of the theory is acceptable as supported by
            scientific
            > evidence?

            Depends on what the flaw is, and what empirical data it is based on.
            Of course if you are saying that a theory that explains alot, but
            not everything is a flaw, then you are talking about many theories
            of science, not just biological ones.

            But as you conceeded, the issue of common descent does not have any
            flaws. The issue of how evolution works, how new traits arise and
            are selected are what is the issue. Creationism/ID can't address
            that and give any answers.

            > > > Your line of reasoning sounds... dictatorial.
            > >
            > > It shouldn't. I was simply asking legitimate questions. If there
            are
            > > no problems with this proposed bill, then I would think the
            > reasonable
            > > people that support it would not be afraid to answer such
            legitimate
            > > questions. What is there to worry about?
            > >
            >
            > I didn't say the questions did, but the reasoning behind it seems
            > such.
            >
            > At any rate, if questioning a theory and all the supporting
            details
            > is acceptable, then there would be no need for a special legal
            bill.

            That is what I am saying, there is no need for a the legal bill.
            Unless you think we should question teachers and introduce evidence
            that proves the holocaust did not happen and the whole story was a
            fabrication by the allies to make Germany look bad.

            > But since questioning this particular scientific theory tends to
            draw
            > out the religious implications behind it, it becomes a legal as
            well
            > as academic issue.

            What questions tend to draw out religious implications. Is it the
            one where it is asked: "How did Noah feed the dinosaurs?" or is it
            the one "Why did donkeys and serpents talk in the past, but don't
            now?". Or is it: "Why did God make communicable diseases?"


            > Your questions and reasoning also seems to imply that the theory
            of
            > biological evolution is flawless and should be without question.

            Nope. Let me say it clearly:

            Evolution, like ALL scientific theories is not flawless. Evolution,
            like ALL scientific theories should be questioned and tested.

            > This is the dictatorial part.


            Sorry if it seems that way. Now you know that evolution should be
            questioned, do you have any questions?

            Truman
          • tinroad66
            ... http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080328/31725_Bill_Allowing_Tea ... Tin: All the ones I have seen are crap. Can you think of any non-crap criticisms
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 2, 2008
              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
              <bingy020@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
              > <seekeththee@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              >
              http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080328/31725_Bill_Allowing_Tea
              > > chers_to_Question_Evolution_Advances.htm
              > >
              > > <<<Proponents of the bill, however, maintain that the proposal
              > would
              > > not permit teachings of alternative theories to evolution -
              > > specifically intelligent design or creationism – but apply to
              > > scientific theories critical of evolution.>>>
              > >
              > > Here is a question for the creationists in the group that are
              > > familiar with this bill:
              > >
              > > What scientific theories are there that are critical of evolution?
              > >
              >
              > You need to ask the scientists who have them.


              Tin: All the ones I have seen are crap.


              Can you think of any non-crap criticisms ?
            • tinroad66
              ... of ... are ... Tin: Dishonest religious based attacks on the knowledge drawn from modern science.
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 2, 2008
                > > <<<According to Storms, a teacher might say: "Here's the theory
                of
                > > evolution and here are the flaws and here are the breaks. Here
                are
                > > the people with legitimate questions. Here's what the theories
                > are,"
                > > the Palm Beach Post reported.>>>
                > >
                > >
                > > Again, here are some more questions for the creationists in the
                > > group that are familiar with this bill:
                > >
                > > 1. What are the "flaws and breaks"?
                > > 2. Who are the "people with legitimate questions"?
                > > 3. What are their theories?
                > >
                >
                > Hello,
                >
                > New here.
                >
                > I counter your question with this quesiton: what do these 37
                > sceintists and you have to worry about?


                Tin: Dishonest religious based attacks on the knowledge drawn from
                modern science.
              • tinroad66
                ... Tin: In the science classroom one should teach science. Since the criticisms have no scientific validity it is fraudelent to teach them. Religous zealots
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 2, 2008
                  > If Evolution has no "flaws and breaks", then the teachers and people
                  > with legitimate questions (who I thought would be expected to ask
                  > quesitons, no? Aren't thinkers supposed to ask questions?) won't have
                  > a leg to stand on.

                  Tin: In the science classroom one should teach science. Since the
                  criticisms have no scientific validity it is fraudelent to teach them.

                  Religous zealots want to bypass the scientific community and have
                  their wrong ideas and misconceptions taught as science. Since their
                  ideas are utterly pathetically lacking in scientific merit they have to
                  go the route of having politicians and school boards declaring their
                  superstitions "scientific".


                  It's a fraud.
                • tinroad66
                  ... Tin: So teachers should certainly cover how well the facts have met those concerns. ... Tin: NO it isn t. It is religious zealots trying to counter the
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 2, 2008
                    > Even Darrwin had legitimate questions about his own theory, such as
                    > suposing that if a certain condition were seen, or not seen, the
                    > theory would have a problem.

                    Tin: So teachers should certainly cover how well the facts have met
                    those concerns.





                    >
                    > It is merely looking at things from all perspectives.


                    Tin: NO it isn't. It is religious zealots trying to counter the
                    conclusions of the scientific community. Not because it lacks
                    scientific merit but because it contradicts their religous beliefs.
                    Their criticisms are religious based not scientific based.




                    >
                    > Your line of reasoning sounds... dictatorial.


                    Tin: Baloney. If there were any significant problems with evolution
                    they would be vetted thru the scientific community.


                    Here is a principle to ponder....the scientific community not
                    politicians, and not religious kooks, should be describing the
                    findings of modern science.
                  • tinroad66
                    ... Tin: Interesting that no answer, and not attempt at a serious answer is provided to fundamental issue of whether the criticisms have any scientific
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 2, 2008
                      > > > What scientific theories are there that are critical of evolution?
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > You need to ask the scientists who have them.
                      >
                      > That begs the question, who are the scientists then?


                      Tin: Interesting that no answer, and not attempt at a serious answer
                      is provided to fundamental issue of whether the "criticisms" have any
                      scientific merit whatsover.


                      The attacks on evolution have no merit.
                    • tinroad66
                      ... Tin: Yes, so why would you blindly accept the wrong headed idea that the criticisms have merit ? Instead shouldn t you educate yourself on the science so
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 2, 2008
                        > > > > What scientific theories are there that are critical of
                        > evolution?
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > You need to ask the scientists who have them.
                        > >
                        > > That begs the question, who are the scientists then?
                        > >
                        >
                        > Who knows? All who desire to question rather than blindly accept?


                        Tin: Yes, so why would you blindly accept the wrong headed idea that
                        the criticisms have merit ?


                        Instead shouldn't you educate yourself on the science so you know
                        what your talking about ?
                      • bingy020
                        ... has ... tends ... Hmmm. Interesting though erroneous conclusion. I don t know the questions because I am not a scientist. ... reaction? ... If I were to
                        Message 11 of 24 , Apr 3, 2008
                          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
                          <seekeththee@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                          > <bingy020@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Well, I am only guessing, but it might be necessary because it
                          has
                          > > been ruled against to teach ID and creation, perhaps? And it
                          tends
                          > to
                          > > be that even well respected sceintists (I am expecting a sordid
                          > reply
                          > > here) who might see that evolution might not be as correct as is
                          > > taught, would have legitimate questions.
                          >
                          > Well, if you don't know what the questions are, then I guess they
                          > must not be that important or relevant.
                          >

                          Hmmm. Interesting though erroneous conclusion. I don't know the
                          questions because I am not a scientist.

                          >
                          > > But asking such questions
                          > > would immediately classs them as religious fanatic morons who do
                          > not
                          > > understand the processes of biology (one noted professor has been
                          > > told this, and he is a biochemistry professor teaching evolution
                          > for
                          > > over 25 years) yet have done research and have taught and are of
                          > good
                          > > repute otherwise and are biologists themselves.
                          >
                          > Well it depends on the questions. Since you don't know what they
                          > are, then how can you say such questions would cause such a
                          reaction?
                          >

                          If I were to quesiton what I percieve as a flaw in evolution, what
                          would your reaction be? Please be honest, because it is easy for
                          *anyone* here to say "I woud try to answer the question unbiasedly."

                          Realistically in the back of one's mind might be the thought "this is
                          probably one of those pseudo-science creationist freaks".

                          > >
                          > > Of course! Yet as more is learned, the questions are raised
                          > > exponentially.
                          >
                          > How can you exponential raise the number zero.

                          That statement sounds irrelevant and unsubstantiated. I was speaking
                          generally about all the sceinces. Where did you come up with zero?

                          Can you really support your statements if you really believe
                          evolution has no questions needing answers?

                          > We still don't know
                          > what questions require a bill like this.
                          >
                          > Its already OK to raise legitimate questions. Why do we need a bill
                          > for it, and why does it have to be for only evolution?
                          >

                          I guess my words were not clear enough.

                          Here, I'll summarize:

                          The controversy: Evolution versus ID and Creation being taught in
                          schools.

                          The law: Ban teaching of creation in schools, following the
                          separation of church and state.

                          The implication/restrictive attitude (taking the law to extremes):
                          Anyone questioning or claiming flaws in the evolution theory must be
                          a creationist.

                          The result: No one is allowed to raise questions regarding what
                          appear to some or many to be flaws in the theory (which ALL theories
                          suffer from) without being clasified as a creationist.

                          The need: A legal bill allowing sceintific quesitoning of a theory,
                          since it has been deemed illegal to question biological evolution.

                          > > Exactly my implication. All other sciences are scrutinized
                          freely.
                          > No
                          > > one has objections.
                          >
                          > Evolution is scrutinized freely too.
                          >

                          Then as you said, there is no need for a bill. Ah but wait, who are
                          the ones generally claiming flaws in evolution? Creationists. Now we
                          must do as everyone does ("one person ruins it for all of us"), ban
                          *all* questioning of evolution from *anyone*, as I summarized above.

                          >
                          > > But question biological evolution, where the only other
                          > alternative
                          > > is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.
                          >
                          > No it doesn't. Go ahead and question evolution, see what happens.
                          >

                          Many of us do here. And see what happens? We're idiots and nuts and
                          delusional and... do I need to continue?

                          > Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory, so it can't be an
                          > alternative.
                          >

                          No one is saying that here. Is this a bill for creation/ID?

                          >
                          > > > > Even Darwin had legitimate questions about his own theory,
                          > such
                          > > as
                          > > > > supposing that if a certain condition were seen, or not seen,
                          > the
                          > > > > theory would have a problem.
                          > > >
                          > > > That is true, and as we see, evolution theory has been modified
                          > to
                          > > fit
                          > > > the data. The main part of his theory, descent with
                          > modification
                          > > has
                          > > > never had a problem though.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > Of course. It is a broad theory that has support. Broad theories
                          > > generally do.
                          >
                          > That is because there is so much evidence for it. So that part must
                          > not be what is being questioned.
                          >
                          >
                          > > > > It is merely looking at things from all perspectives.
                          > > >
                          > > > Well, that would be true if one was looking at the things. The
                          > thing
                          > > > is that those "other perspectives", just looks at
                          > those "problems"
                          > > and
                          > > > fails to address those "problems" along with the rest of what
                          is
                          > no
                          > > > problem.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > How so? If I see a flaw in a theory, would it not behoove the
                          > > theorist to repair the flaw with more research? Would it not also
                          > say
                          > > that the rest of the theory is acceptable as supported by
                          > scientific
                          > > evidence?
                          >
                          > Depends on what the flaw is, and what empirical data it is based
                          on.
                          > Of course if you are saying that a theory that explains alot, but
                          > not everything is a flaw,

                          You are now imposing erroneus ideas in my statement that are not
                          there.

                          > then you are talking about many theories
                          > of science, not just biological ones.
                          >

                          Where did I state otherwise?

                          > But as you conceeded, the issue of common descent does not have any
                          > flaws. The issue of how evolution works, how new traits arise and
                          > are selected are what is the issue. Creationism/ID can't address
                          > that and give any answers.
                          >

                          Where did I conceed *that*??

                          > > > > Your line of reasoning sounds... dictatorial.
                          > > >
                          > > > It shouldn't. I was simply asking legitimate questions. If
                          there
                          > are
                          > > > no problems with this proposed bill, then I would think the
                          > > reasonable
                          > > > people that support it would not be afraid to answer such
                          > legitimate
                          > > > questions. What is there to worry about?
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > I didn't say the questions did, but the reasoning behind it seems
                          > > such.
                          > >
                          > > At any rate, if questioning a theory and all the supporting
                          > details
                          > > is acceptable, then there would be no need for a special legal
                          > bill.
                          >
                          > That is what I am saying, there is no need for a the legal bill.
                          > Unless you think we should question teachers and introduce evidence
                          > that proves the holocaust did not happen and the whole story was a
                          > fabrication by the allies to make Germany look bad.
                          >

                          Yet, you miss the point. When it comes to Evolution, anyone bringing
                          up a question about any part of it is already labelled on the side of
                          ID. Therefore one cannot LEGALLY ask the question.

                          One must therefore request LEGAL action in order to ask a legitimate
                          scientific question.

                          Regarding the Holocaust, there are *many* who claim it never
                          happened. And I do not see anyone making a media frenzy over or a law
                          against their right to ask about it in school, which I am sure has
                          happened.

                          > > But since questioning this particular scientific theory tends to
                          > draw
                          > > out the religious implications behind it, it becomes a legal as
                          > well
                          > > as academic issue.
                          >
                          > What questions tend to draw out religious implications. Is it the
                          > one where it is asked: "How did Noah feed the dinosaurs?" or is it
                          > the one "Why did donkeys and serpents talk in the past, but don't
                          > now?". Or is it: "Why did God make communicable diseases?"
                          >

                          Now you are merely misdirecting the issue.

                          >
                          > > Your questions and reasoning also seems to imply that the theory
                          > of
                          > > biological evolution is flawless and should be without question.
                          >
                          > Nope. Let me say it clearly:
                          >
                          > Evolution, like ALL scientific theories is not flawless. Evolution,
                          > like ALL scientific theories should be questioned and tested.
                          >

                          Then why do these people feel the need to request the legal right to
                          ask?

                          > > This is the dictatorial part.
                          >
                          >
                          > Sorry if it seems that way. Now you know that evolution should be
                          > questioned, do you have any questions?
                          >

                          As I mentioned above, I am no sceintist. I do not know of any
                          questions. I dropped in to learn and to see what others think. I saw
                          this particular post, read the article, and thought I'd mention a few
                          thoughts.

                          How about you? Do *you* have any questions regarding anything you
                          might find is a flaw in the theory of biological evolution?

                          Robert.
                        • seekeththee
                          ... sordid ... is ... they ... Then why do we need a bill that allows scientists to come into a high school science classroom and ask the teacher questions??
                          Message 12 of 24 , Apr 3, 2008
                            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                            <bingy020@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
                            > <seekeththee@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                            > > <bingy020@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Well, I am only guessing, but it might be necessary because it
                            > has
                            > > > been ruled against to teach ID and creation, perhaps? And it
                            > tends
                            > > to
                            > > > be that even well respected sceintists (I am expecting a
                            sordid
                            > > reply
                            > > > here) who might see that evolution might not be as correct as
                            is
                            > > > taught, would have legitimate questions.
                            > >
                            > > Well, if you don't know what the questions are, then I guess
                            they
                            > > must not be that important or relevant.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Hmmm. Interesting though erroneous conclusion. I don't know the
                            > questions because I am not a scientist.

                            Then why do we need a bill that allows scientists to come into a
                            high school science classroom and ask the teacher questions??

                            Why can't a scientist ask another scientist?



                            > > > But asking such questions
                            > > > would immediately classs them as religious fanatic morons who
                            do
                            > > not
                            > > > understand the processes of biology (one noted professor has
                            been
                            > > > told this, and he is a biochemistry professor teaching
                            evolution
                            > > for
                            > > > over 25 years) yet have done research and have taught and are
                            of
                            > > good
                            > > > repute otherwise and are biologists themselves.
                            > >
                            > > Well it depends on the questions. Since you don't know what they
                            > > are, then how can you say such questions would cause such a
                            > reaction?
                            > >
                            >
                            > If I were to quesiton what I percieve as a flaw in evolution, what
                            > would your reaction be? Please be honest, because it is easy for
                            > *anyone* here to say "I woud try to answer the question
                            unbiasedly."

                            My reaction would be to try to answer it if I could.


                            > Realistically in the back of one's mind might be the thought "this
                            is
                            > probably one of those pseudo-science creationist freaks".

                            That might be, but that doesn't have anything to do with the
                            validity of the question.

                            Most pseudo-science creationist freaks ask the question, and then
                            get an answer. And then they don't like the answer, and ask the
                            question again as if that is somehow going to change the answer.

                            > > > Of course! Yet as more is learned, the questions are raised
                            > > > exponentially.
                            > >
                            > > How can you exponential raise the number zero.
                            >
                            > That statement sounds irrelevant and unsubstantiated. I was
                            speaking
                            > generally about all the sceinces. Where did you come up with zero?

                            You brought it up, so that is what makes it relevant. The number of
                            questions that supposedly have been raised, since you don't know
                            them, is zero.


                            > Can you really support your statements if you really believe
                            > evolution has no questions needing answers?

                            Since that is not what I believe, THAT question is irrelvant.


                            > > We still don't know
                            > > what questions require a bill like this.
                            > >
                            > > Its already OK to raise legitimate questions. Why do we need a
                            bill
                            > > for it, and why does it have to be for only evolution?
                            > >
                            >
                            > I guess my words were not clear enough.
                            >
                            > Here, I'll summarize:
                            >
                            > The controversy: Evolution versus ID and Creation being taught in
                            > schools.

                            Well, you got that right, but the problem is the bill being
                            introduced, is trying to hide under the guise of "freedom of
                            speech". If you would have read the first post I made, you will find
                            that the sponsor of that bill does not want it to look like
                            evolution vs creation, and does not want to suggest that
                            creationism/ID should be taught in school.

                            But I guess you saw right through that, and know what here motives
                            are, didn't you?


                            > The law: Ban teaching of creation in schools, following the
                            > separation of church and state.

                            No, the laws says that it is illegal to teach one religious doctrine
                            over the others in a public school. Specifically, it is illegal to
                            teach creationism as science. You can teach creationism, along with
                            other religious creation myths in the history, or religious studies
                            classrooms down the hall.


                            > The implication/restrictive attitude (taking the law to extremes):
                            > Anyone questioning or claiming flaws in the evolution theory must
                            be
                            > a creationist.

                            No, what a creationist does is takes quotes from scientists that
                            question or claim flaws in evolution, and then uses them out of
                            context.


                            > The result: No one is allowed to raise questions regarding what
                            > appear to some or many to be flaws in the theory (which ALL
                            theories
                            > suffer from) without being clasified as a creationist.

                            A creationist is one that raises questions that have already been
                            answered over and over, or bases their questions on misconceptions
                            and when they are corrected, asks the same questions again.

                            Is that why you don't want to ask questions? You are an
                            evolutionist, and are afraid if you ask a question, somebody might
                            think you are a creationist? Have you ever thought about just
                            telling a person your not a creationist?

                            I do have to say, that I have been called a creationist myself. So
                            because many people make judgments too quick, does not mean you
                            can't get over it, and ask questions anyway.


                            > The need: A legal bill allowing sceintific quesitoning of a
                            theory,
                            > since it has been deemed illegal to question biological evolution.

                            Well, you have been told that we don't need a bill. I have told you
                            that you can question evolution all you want. Its not illegal.

                            But are you going to do like what creationists do, and keep saying
                            something that is wrong, and repeat it so many times that if you
                            haven't already, you will convince yourself it is so?

                            > > > Exactly my implication. All other sciences are scrutinized
                            > freely.
                            > > No
                            > > > one has objections.
                            > >
                            > > Evolution is scrutinized freely too.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Then as you said, there is no need for a bill.

                            That is right!


                            Ah but wait, who are
                            > the ones generally claiming flaws in evolution? Creationists.

                            What flaws? Of course creationists are going to claim that, but
                            that doesn't mean there are no flaws.


                            > Now we
                            > must do as everyone does ("one person ruins it for all of us"),
                            ban
                            > *all* questioning of evolution from *anyone*, as I summarized
                            above.

                            No, as a scientific theory, evolution, like all science must
                            continually be questioned and tested.


                            > > > But question biological evolution, where the only other
                            > > alternative
                            > > > is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.
                            > >
                            > > No it doesn't. Go ahead and question evolution, see what happens.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Many of us do here. And see what happens? We're idiots and nuts
                            and
                            > delusional and... do I need to continue?
                            >
                            > > Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory, so it can't be an
                            > > alternative.
                            > >
                            >
                            > No one is saying that here. Is this a bill for creation/ID?

                            According to the writer, she says this bill is for freedom of speech.


                            > > > > > Even Darwin had legitimate questions about his own theory,
                            > > such
                            > > > as
                            > > > > > supposing that if a certain condition were seen, or not
                            seen,
                            > > the
                            > > > > > theory would have a problem.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > That is true, and as we see, evolution theory has been
                            modified
                            > > to
                            > > > fit
                            > > > > the data. The main part of his theory, descent with
                            > > modification
                            > > > has
                            > > > > never had a problem though.
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Of course. It is a broad theory that has support. Broad
                            theories
                            > > > generally do.
                            > >
                            > > That is because there is so much evidence for it. So that part
                            must
                            > > not be what is being questioned.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > > > It is merely looking at things from all perspectives.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Well, that would be true if one was looking at the things.
                            The
                            > > thing
                            > > > > is that those "other perspectives", just looks at
                            > > those "problems"
                            > > > and
                            > > > > fails to address those "problems" along with the rest of
                            what
                            > is
                            > > no
                            > > > > problem.
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > How so? If I see a flaw in a theory, would it not behoove the
                            > > > theorist to repair the flaw with more research? Would it not
                            also
                            > > say
                            > > > that the rest of the theory is acceptable as supported by
                            > > scientific
                            > > > evidence?
                            > >
                            > > Depends on what the flaw is, and what empirical data it is based
                            > on.
                            > > Of course if you are saying that a theory that explains alot,
                            but
                            > > not everything is a flaw,
                            >
                            > You are now imposing erroneus ideas in my statement that are not
                            > there.

                            I am trying to figure out what you are saying.

                            You won't explain what the questions or flaws are, yet you say there
                            are flaws. Well, every theory has some flaws, or can't explain
                            certain aspects about nature. But that doesn't mean that everything
                            else it explains is wrong.
                            http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/


                            > > then you are talking about many theories
                            > > of science, not just biological ones.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Where did I state otherwise?

                            You are fragmenting what I stated and taking it out of context. I
                            said: "***if*** you are saying that a theory that explains alot, but
                            not everything is a flaw then you are talking about many theories
                            of science, not just biological ones."


                            Sof if that is not what you are doing, then don't worry about it.


                            > > But as you conceeded, the issue of common descent does not have
                            any
                            > > flaws. The issue of how evolution works, how new traits arise
                            and
                            > > are selected are what is the issue. Creationism/ID can't address
                            > > that and give any answers.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Where did I conceed *that*??

                            I said: "The main part of his theory, descent with modification
                            has never had a problem though."
                            and you said: "Of course. It is a broad theory that has support.
                            Broad theories generally do."
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondebate/message/62607

                            > > > > > Your line of reasoning sounds... dictatorial.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > It shouldn't. I was simply asking legitimate questions. If
                            > there
                            > > are
                            > > > > no problems with this proposed bill, then I would think the
                            > > > reasonable
                            > > > > people that support it would not be afraid to answer such
                            > > legitimate
                            > > > > questions. What is there to worry about?
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > I didn't say the questions did, but the reasoning behind it
                            seems
                            > > > such.
                            > > >
                            > > > At any rate, if questioning a theory and all the supporting
                            > > details
                            > > > is acceptable, then there would be no need for a special legal
                            > > bill.
                            > >
                            > > That is what I am saying, there is no need for a the legal
                            bill.
                            > > Unless you think we should question teachers and introduce
                            evidence
                            > > that proves the holocaust did not happen and the whole story was
                            a
                            > > fabrication by the allies to make Germany look bad.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Yet, you miss the point. When it comes to Evolution, anyone
                            bringing
                            > up a question about any part of it is already labelled on the side
                            of
                            > ID. Therefore one cannot LEGALLY ask the question.

                            You can question all you want. If a person is lablled on the side of
                            ID, so what? Questions raised by creatoinists have been answered,
                            yet they keep asking as if that is supposed to change the answer.

                            What is illegal, is to teach creationism.


                            > One must therefore request LEGAL action in order to ask a
                            legitimate
                            > scientific question.

                            It is already legal to ask legitimate scientific questions.

                            > Regarding the Holocaust, there are *many* who claim it never
                            > happened. And I do not see anyone making a media frenzy over or a
                            law
                            > against their right to ask about it in school, which I am sure has
                            > happened.

                            Well they are not trying to use politics to get it taught in the
                            schools, but based on creationist arguments about "freedom of
                            speech", it would be perfectly acceptable to introduce topics like
                            that in the classroom as competeting points of view. We would have
                            to spend the time evaluating all the evidence for and against it and
                            let the kids decide if it happened or not. For those kids who do not
                            think it happened, then we would have to offer alternative history
                            classes that would base history on a 'non-holocaust' perspecitve as
                            so much interpetation is based on there actually being a holocaust.


                            > > > But since questioning this particular scientific theory tends
                            to
                            > > draw
                            > > > out the religious implications behind it, it becomes a legal
                            as
                            > > well
                            > > > as academic issue.
                            > >
                            > > What questions tend to draw out religious implications. Is it
                            the
                            > > one where it is asked: "How did Noah feed the dinosaurs?" or is
                            it
                            > > the one "Why did donkeys and serpents talk in the past, but
                            don't
                            > > now?". Or is it: "Why did God make communicable diseases?"
                            > >
                            >
                            > Now you are merely misdirecting the issue.

                            Feel free to restate what the issue is. I am trying to figure out
                            what your point is, when the is nothing that says a person can't ask
                            questions. The examples I gave above show that some questions are
                            inapproriate for science classes, but if you think otherwise, then
                            exlplain yourself

                            > > > Your questions and reasoning also seems to imply that the
                            theory
                            > > of
                            > > > biological evolution is flawless and should be without
                            question.
                            > >
                            > > Nope. Let me say it clearly:
                            > >
                            > > Evolution, like ALL scientific theories is not flawless.
                            Evolution,
                            > > like ALL scientific theories should be questioned and tested.
                            > >
                            >
                            > Then why do these people feel the need to request the legal right
                            to
                            > ask?

                            Its a strategy to get creationism introduced into the science
                            classroom.


                            > > > This is the dictatorial part.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Sorry if it seems that way. Now you know that evolution should
                            be
                            > > questioned, do you have any questions?
                            > >
                            >
                            > As I mentioned above, I am no sceintist. I do not know of any
                            > questions. I dropped in to learn and to see what others think. I
                            saw
                            > this particular post, read the article, and thought I'd mention a
                            few
                            > thoughts.

                            Well it would be worth it to find out what particular questions
                            can't be asked. Then those people that came up with this bill may
                            have an issue. As I said, there is nothing wrong with questioning
                            scientific theories.

                            > How about you? Do *you* have any questions regarding anything you
                            > might find is a flaw in the theory of biological evolution?

                            No, no questions at this moment.

                            Truman
                          • tinroad66
                            ... is ... Tin: So... you blindly accept that they have some value ? Making you guilty of the very crime you have complained about.
                            Message 13 of 24 , Apr 4, 2008
                              > > > Well, I am only guessing, but it might be necessary because it
                              > has
                              > > > been ruled against to teach ID and creation, perhaps? And it
                              > tends
                              > > to
                              > > > be that even well respected sceintists (I am expecting a sordid
                              > > reply
                              > > > here) who might see that evolution might not be as correct as
                              is
                              > > > taught, would have legitimate questions.
                              > >
                              > > Well, if you don't know what the questions are, then I guess they
                              > > must not be that important or relevant.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Hmmm. Interesting though erroneous conclusion. I don't know the
                              > questions because I am not a scientist.


                              Tin: So... you blindly accept that they have some value ?


                              Making you guilty of the very crime you have complained about.
                            • tinroad66
                              ... Tin: If the alleged flaw were based on a misunderstanding of the basic underlying science you d get criticized for it. Fairly so.
                              Message 14 of 24 , Apr 4, 2008
                                > > Well it depends on the questions. Since you don't know what they
                                > > are, then how can you say such questions would cause such a
                                > reaction?
                                > >
                                >
                                > If I were to quesiton what I percieve as a flaw in evolution, what
                                > would your reaction be? Please be honest, because it is easy for
                                > *anyone* here to say "I woud try to answer the question unbiasedly."


                                Tin: If the alleged flaw were based on a misunderstanding of the basic
                                underlying science you'd get criticized for it.


                                Fairly so.
                              • tinroad66
                                ... Tin: ...well maybe because that been the track record. Refusing to even attempt to present a subtantive support for your position is hardly an effective
                                Message 15 of 24 , Apr 4, 2008
                                  > > > But question biological evolution, where the only other
                                  > > alternative
                                  > > > is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.
                                  > >
                                  > > No it doesn't. Go ahead and question evolution, see what happens.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Many of us do here. And see what happens? We're idiots and nuts and
                                  > delusional and... do I need to continue?


                                  Tin: ...well maybe because that' been the track record.



                                  Refusing to even attempt to present a subtantive support for
                                  your position is hardly an effective means of countering the negative
                                  stereotypes of creationists & IDers as vapid.
                                • tinroad66
                                  ... bill ... Tin: Creationism is religious....it has absolutley no scientific value or merit. Why would anyone think it s wise to teach non-science as if it
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Apr 4, 2008
                                    > > We still don't know
                                    > > what questions require a bill like this.
                                    > >
                                    > > Its already OK to raise legitimate questions. Why do we need a
                                    bill
                                    > > for it, and why does it have to be for only evolution?
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > I guess my words were not clear enough.
                                    >
                                    > Here, I'll summarize:
                                    >
                                    > The controversy: Evolution versus ID and Creation being taught in
                                    > schools.
                                    >
                                    > The law: Ban teaching of creation in schools, following the
                                    > separation of church and state.


                                    Tin: Creationism is religious....it has absolutley no scientific
                                    value or merit.


                                    Why would anyone think it's wise to teach non-science as if it
                                    were science ?





                                    >
                                    > The implication/restrictive attitude (taking the law to extremes):
                                    > Anyone questioning or claiming flaws in the evolution theory must
                                    be
                                    > a creationist.

                                    Tin. In theory, they could be anyone. In practice, it is religious
                                    zealots who are keen to reverse, or cover up the findings from modern
                                    science.








                                    >
                                    > The result: No one is allowed to raise questions regarding what
                                    > appear to some or many to be flaws in the theory (which ALL
                                    theories
                                    > suffer from) without being clasified as a creationist.


                                    Tin: The real problem is that the alleged flaws boil down to lies.
                                  • tinroad66
                                    ... Tin: How can you advocate that these questions be taught without having any idea what the questions are or whether they have even the slightest bit of
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Apr 4, 2008
                                      > > Sorry if it seems that way. Now you know that evolution should be
                                      > > questioned, do you have any questions?
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > As I mentioned above, I am no sceintist. I do not know of any
                                      > questions.


                                      Tin: How can you advocate that these questions be taught without
                                      having any idea what the questions are or whether they have even the
                                      slightest bit of scientific value behind them ? (((BTW, they dont')))).
                                    • seekeththee
                                      ... be ... dont )))). It might be that the proponents of this antievolution agenda are Evangelical Christians, and just knowing that they are against evolution
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Apr 4, 2008
                                        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66"
                                        <tinroad66@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > > Sorry if it seems that way. Now you know that evolution should
                                        be
                                        > > > questioned, do you have any questions?
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > As I mentioned above, I am no sceintist. I do not know of any
                                        > > questions.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Tin: How can you advocate that these questions be taught without
                                        > having any idea what the questions are or whether they have even the
                                        > slightest bit of scientific value behind them ? (((BTW, they
                                        dont')))).


                                        It might be that the proponents of this antievolution agenda are
                                        Evangelical Christians, and just knowing that they are against
                                        evolution is good enough, he doesn't have to know why.

                                        Or perhaps he was first introduced to something like this:
                                        "(1) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not
                                        be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take . . . ."

                                        (2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the
                                        conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear
                                        to back them."

                                        (3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories]
                                        that contradict the Bible." "
                                        http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2008/03/ready-aim.html

                                        And all he knows is that what ever evolution is, it is against
                                        Christian beliefs, and contradicts the Bible. There is no amount of
                                        evidence that can change a belief.

                                        The way he is being evasive and at the same time complaining about
                                        possibly being assigned this stereotype would suggest this.

                                        Truman
                                      • bingy020
                                        ... it ... This is becoming redundant. If my answer is insufficient, then it is a moot point for you. The question though is valid. Why would a bill be needed
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Apr 14, 2008
                                          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
                                          <seekeththee@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                                          > <bingy020@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
                                          > > <seekeththee@> wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                                          > > > <bingy020@> wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Well, I am only guessing, but it might be necessary because
                                          it
                                          > > has
                                          > > > > been ruled against to teach ID and creation, perhaps? And it
                                          > > tends
                                          > > > to
                                          > > > > be that even well respected sceintists (I am expecting a
                                          > sordid
                                          > > > reply
                                          > > > > here) who might see that evolution might not be as correct as
                                          > is
                                          > > > > taught, would have legitimate questions.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Well, if you don't know what the questions are, then I guess
                                          > they
                                          > > > must not be that important or relevant.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Hmmm. Interesting though erroneous conclusion. I don't know the
                                          > > questions because I am not a scientist.
                                          >
                                          > Then why do we need a bill that allows scientists to come into a
                                          > high school science classroom and ask the teacher questions??
                                          >
                                          > Why can't a scientist ask another scientist?
                                          >

                                          This is becoming redundant. If my answer is insufficient, then it is
                                          a moot point for you.

                                          The question though is valid. Why would a bill be needed to question
                                          evolution?

                                          Answer: Because it is against the law to teach creation in science
                                          class, and questioning evolution has the stigma of being from
                                          creationism.

                                          I cannot state it any simpler than that.

                                          Is it a tactic of evolutionists to make every point a goal to be
                                          frustrating and more complicated than needed?

                                          >
                                          > > > > But asking such questions
                                          > > > > would immediately classs them as religious fanatic morons who
                                          > do
                                          > > > not
                                          > > > > understand the processes of biology (one noted professor has
                                          > been
                                          > > > > told this, and he is a biochemistry professor teaching
                                          > evolution
                                          > > > for
                                          > > > > over 25 years) yet have done research and have taught and are
                                          > of
                                          > > > good
                                          > > > > repute otherwise and are biologists themselves.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Well it depends on the questions. Since you don't know what
                                          they
                                          > > > are, then how can you say such questions would cause such a
                                          > > reaction?
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > If I were to quesiton what I percieve as a flaw in evolution,
                                          what
                                          > > would your reaction be? Please be honest, because it is easy for
                                          > > *anyone* here to say "I woud try to answer the question
                                          > unbiasedly."
                                          >
                                          > My reaction would be to try to answer it if I could.
                                          >

                                          Of course it would.

                                          >
                                          > > Realistically in the back of one's mind might be the
                                          thought "this
                                          > is
                                          > > probably one of those pseudo-science creationist freaks".
                                          >
                                          > That might be, but that doesn't have anything to do with the
                                          > validity of the question.
                                          >
                                          > Most pseudo-science creationist freaks ask the question, and then
                                          > get an answer. And then they don't like the answer, and ask the
                                          > question again as if that is somehow going to change the answer.
                                          >

                                          Noted. But the bill has nothing to do with them, does it? Now this
                                          seems evasive and redirected. The bill is not addressing creationism
                                          or the followers thereof.

                                          > > > > Of course! Yet as more is learned, the questions are raised
                                          > > > > exponentially.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > How can you exponential raise the number zero.
                                          > >
                                          > > That statement sounds irrelevant and unsubstantiated. I was
                                          > speaking
                                          > > generally about all the sceinces. Where did you come up with zero?
                                          >
                                          > You brought it up, so that is what makes it relevant. The number of
                                          > questions that supposedly have been raised, since you don't know
                                          > them, is zero.
                                          >

                                          I did not bring up zero. You did. And, the number of questions raised
                                          is simply unknown by me. It does not automatically mean zero. That is
                                          an unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

                                          When one discovers and learns new things in nature, one raises more
                                          and more questions. What *I* know or don't know does not make this
                                          any more or less true, because the questions will still be there.
                                          *Someone* is going to think of them to ask.

                                          >
                                          > > Can you really support your statements if you really believe
                                          > > evolution has no questions needing answers?
                                          >
                                          > Since that is not what I believe, THAT question is irrelvant.
                                          >

                                          Hmm. That is not what you indicated. *You * brought up "zero".
                                          Therefore it is what you believe.

                                          >
                                          > > > We still don't know
                                          > > > what questions require a bill like this.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Its already OK to raise legitimate questions. Why do we need a
                                          > bill
                                          > > > for it, and why does it have to be for only evolution?
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > I guess my words were not clear enough.
                                          > >
                                          > > Here, I'll summarize:
                                          > >
                                          > > The controversy: Evolution versus ID and Creation being taught in
                                          > > schools.
                                          >
                                          > Well, you got that right, but the problem is the bill being
                                          > introduced, is trying to hide under the guise of "freedom of
                                          > speech". If you would have read the first post I made, you will
                                          find
                                          > that the sponsor of that bill does not want it to look like
                                          > evolution vs creation, and does not want to suggest that
                                          > creationism/ID should be taught in school.
                                          >
                                          > But I guess you saw right through that, and know what here motives
                                          > are, didn't you?
                                          >

                                          So, is it a religious group that is fighting to have this bill
                                          ratified? I did not get that indication. Why do you?

                                          This is the prejudice of which I am speaking. Instantly you assume it
                                          is a religious fight. Thank you for providing evidence to support my
                                          statement.

                                          >
                                          > > The law: Ban teaching of creation in schools, following the
                                          > > separation of church and state.
                                          >
                                          > No, the laws says that it is illegal to teach one religious
                                          doctrine
                                          > over the others in a public school. Specifically, it is illegal to
                                          > teach creationism as science. You can teach creationism, along
                                          with
                                          > other religious creation myths in the history, or religious studies
                                          > classrooms down the hall.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > The implication/restrictive attitude (taking the law to
                                          extremes):
                                          > > Anyone questioning or claiming flaws in the evolution theory must
                                          > be
                                          > > a creationist.
                                          >
                                          > No, what a creationist does is takes quotes from scientists that
                                          > question or claim flaws in evolution, and then uses them out of
                                          > context.
                                          >

                                          And I did not imply otherwise. Nor was that part of my statement. You
                                          yourself supply evidence to what I am saying above and below.

                                          >
                                          > > The result: No one is allowed to raise questions regarding what
                                          > > appear to some or many to be flaws in the theory (which ALL
                                          > theories
                                          > > suffer from) without being clasified as a creationist.
                                          >
                                          > A creationist is one that raises questions that have already been
                                          > answered over and over, or bases their questions on misconceptions
                                          > and when they are corrected, asks the same questions again.
                                          >

                                          Be that as it may, it is not relevant to what I am saying.

                                          > Is that why you don't want to ask questions? You are an
                                          > evolutionist, and are afraid if you ask a question, somebody might
                                          > think you are a creationist? Have you ever thought about just
                                          > telling a person your not a creationist?
                                          >

                                          I am not saying this either. Jumping to conclusions won't help us
                                          understand why.

                                          > I do have to say, that I have been called a creationist myself. So
                                          > because many people make judgments too quick, does not mean you
                                          > can't get over it, and ask questions anyway.
                                          >

                                          Legally?

                                          That is the point. You yourself provide the evidence above. You said
                                          religious creation myth cannot be taught in the same class as
                                          science. If one asks a question against evolution, it is assumed that
                                          it is a religious one, and therefore illegal.

                                          One therefore needs a bill to ask a legitimate scientific question
                                          against evolution, whatever the questions may be.

                                          As for myself, I am not taking sides. Nor does it matter what I know.

                                          >
                                          > > The need: A legal bill allowing sceintific quesitoning of a
                                          > theory,
                                          > > since it has been deemed illegal to question biological evolution.
                                          >
                                          > Well, you have been told that we don't need a bill. I have told you
                                          > that you can question evolution all you want. Its not illegal.
                                          >

                                          Not according to the above. If what you say were truly the case, then
                                          this conversation would not be taking place, and the article would
                                          not exist.

                                          It seems as though you are not being reasonable or logical.

                                          > But are you going to do like what creationists do, and keep saying
                                          > something that is wrong, and repeat it so many times that if you
                                          > haven't already, you will convince yourself it is so?
                                          >

                                          I beg your pardon? As I said above, if what you say is correct, then
                                          this whole thing would not exist. Since it *does* exist, there must
                                          be a problem with legitimate questioning against evolution. I merely
                                          provided a hypothesis of why it would be necessary.

                                          You are jumping to conclusions and exagerrating the points made.

                                          > > > > Exactly my implication. All other sciences are scrutinized
                                          > > freely.
                                          > > > No
                                          > > > > one has objections.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Evolution is scrutinized freely too.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Then as you said, there is no need for a bill.
                                          >
                                          > That is right!
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Ah but wait, who are
                                          > > the ones generally claiming flaws in evolution? Creationists.
                                          >
                                          > What flaws? Of course creationists are going to claim that, but
                                          > that doesn't mean there are no flaws.

                                          What are you asking here?

                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > Now we
                                          > > must do as everyone does ("one person ruins it for all of us"),
                                          > ban
                                          > > *all* questioning of evolution from *anyone*, as I summarized
                                          > above.
                                          >
                                          > No, as a scientific theory, evolution, like all science must
                                          > continually be questioned and tested.
                                          >

                                          Of course. This is supposed to be true for all science. Yet, we have
                                          this allegedly unnecessary bill. There must be a reason. I do not
                                          believe that they are making such waves for no reason at all.

                                          >
                                          > > > > But question biological evolution, where the only other
                                          > > > alternative
                                          > > > > is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > No it doesn't. Go ahead and question evolution, see what
                                          happens.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Many of us do here. And see what happens? We're idiots and nuts
                                          > and
                                          > > delusional and... do I need to continue?
                                          > >
                                          > > > Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory, so it can't be an
                                          > > > alternative.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > No one is saying that here. Is this a bill for creation/ID?
                                          >
                                          > According to the writer, she says this bill is for freedom of
                                          speech.
                                          >

                                          OK. Thefore there *must* be a restriction on the freedom of speech of
                                          some kind.

                                          >
                                          > > > > > > Even Darwin had legitimate questions about his own
                                          theory,
                                          > > > such
                                          > > > > as
                                          > > > > > > supposing that if a certain condition were seen, or not
                                          > seen,
                                          > > > the
                                          > > > > > > theory would have a problem.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > That is true, and as we see, evolution theory has been
                                          > modified
                                          > > > to
                                          > > > > fit
                                          > > > > > the data. The main part of his theory, descent with
                                          > > > modification
                                          > > > > has
                                          > > > > > never had a problem though.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Of course. It is a broad theory that has support. Broad
                                          > theories
                                          > > > > generally do.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > That is because there is so much evidence for it. So that part
                                          > must
                                          > > > not be what is being questioned.
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > > > It is merely looking at things from all perspectives.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Well, that would be true if one was looking at the things.
                                          > The
                                          > > > thing
                                          > > > > > is that those "other perspectives", just looks at
                                          > > > those "problems"
                                          > > > > and
                                          > > > > > fails to address those "problems" along with the rest of
                                          > what
                                          > > is
                                          > > > no
                                          > > > > > problem.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > How so? If I see a flaw in a theory, would it not behoove the
                                          > > > > theorist to repair the flaw with more research? Would it not
                                          > also
                                          > > > say
                                          > > > > that the rest of the theory is acceptable as supported by
                                          > > > scientific
                                          > > > > evidence?
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Depends on what the flaw is, and what empirical data it is
                                          based
                                          > > on.
                                          > > > Of course if you are saying that a theory that explains alot,
                                          > but
                                          > > > not everything is a flaw,
                                          > >
                                          > > You are now imposing erroneus ideas in my statement that are not
                                          > > there.
                                          >
                                          > I am trying to figure out what you are saying.
                                          >
                                          > You won't explain what the questions or flaws are, yet you say
                                          there
                                          > are flaws. Well, every theory has some flaws, or can't explain
                                          > certain aspects about nature. But that doesn't mean that everything
                                          > else it explains is wrong.
                                          > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/
                                          >

                                          No, I personally did not say there were specific flaws. You are
                                          putting words in my mouth. Yet what I *did* say was that all theories
                                          have flaws. I *did* say that there might be some flaws in evolution
                                          and those are what are desired to being questioned. Yet one must
                                          accept those parts that are not flawed.

                                          Please remember the things I say and do not pick out of context.

                                          >
                                          > > > then you are talking about many theories
                                          > > > of science, not just biological ones.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Where did I state otherwise?
                                          >
                                          > You are fragmenting what I stated and taking it out of context.

                                          How so?

                                          > I
                                          > said: "***if*** you are saying that a theory that explains alot,
                                          but
                                          > not everything is a flaw then you are talking about many theories
                                          > of science, not just biological ones."
                                          >

                                          And my question, "where did I say otherwise?", was an acknowledgement
                                          of agreement.

                                          >
                                          > Sof if that is not what you are doing, then don't worry about it.
                                          >

                                          Ok.

                                          >
                                          > > > But as you conceeded, the issue of common descent does not have
                                          > any
                                          > > > flaws. The issue of how evolution works, how new traits arise
                                          > and
                                          > > > are selected are what is the issue. Creationism/ID can't
                                          address
                                          > > > that and give any answers.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Where did I conceed *that*??
                                          >
                                          > I said: "The main part of his theory, descent with modification
                                          > has never had a problem though."
                                          > and you said: "Of course. It is a broad theory that has support.
                                          > Broad theories generally do."
                                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondebate/message/62607
                                          >

                                          Those are two different things. I did not conceed to "common
                                          descent", but stated that, in other words, "descent with
                                          modification" was a broad theory that can have support.

                                          > > > > > > Your line of reasoning sounds... dictatorial.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > It shouldn't. I was simply asking legitimate questions. If
                                          > > there
                                          > > > are
                                          > > > > > no problems with this proposed bill, then I would think the
                                          > > > > reasonable
                                          > > > > > people that support it would not be afraid to answer such
                                          > > > legitimate
                                          > > > > > questions. What is there to worry about?
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > I didn't say the questions did, but the reasoning behind it
                                          > seems
                                          > > > > such.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > At any rate, if questioning a theory and all the supporting
                                          > > > details
                                          > > > > is acceptable, then there would be no need for a special
                                          legal
                                          > > > bill.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > That is what I am saying, there is no need for a the legal
                                          > bill.
                                          > > > Unless you think we should question teachers and introduce
                                          > evidence
                                          > > > that proves the holocaust did not happen and the whole story
                                          was
                                          > a
                                          > > > fabrication by the allies to make Germany look bad.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Yet, you miss the point. When it comes to Evolution, anyone
                                          > bringing
                                          > > up a question about any part of it is already labelled on the
                                          side
                                          > of
                                          > > ID. Therefore one cannot LEGALLY ask the question.
                                          >
                                          > You can question all you want. If a person is lablled on the side
                                          of
                                          > ID, so what? Questions raised by creatoinists have been answered,
                                          > yet they keep asking as if that is supposed to change the answer.
                                          >
                                          > What is illegal, is to teach creationism.
                                          >

                                          Exactly, as I stated above. And anyone asking a question against
                                          evolution is immediately classed as a creationist, therefore the
                                          question is illegal to ask.

                                          >
                                          > > One must therefore request LEGAL action in order to ask a
                                          > legitimate
                                          > > scientific question.
                                          >
                                          > It is already legal to ask legitimate scientific questions.
                                          >

                                          Evidently not in the evolution arena, otherwise one would not need to
                                          request legal action.

                                          When one poses a new hyothesis in evolution, the questions are asked
                                          which try to validate or invalidate it. When validated it therefore
                                          becomes an accepted theory, until something is discovered that
                                          invalidates or modifies the theory.

                                          Yet, when one wants to question the accepted theory of evolution and
                                          believes they have evidence that might suggest it being incorrect,
                                          there is an immediate assumption that the person must have a
                                          creationist agenda, and is therefore barred from raising the
                                          questions. It actually does happen in other fields of science. One
                                          must have a PhD or be associated with a popular scientist in order to
                                          get their ideas even looked at (except in astronomy, where they
                                          wholely accept amateurs, since having as many eyes in the sky is very
                                          important to the research). This is common knowledge. Yet the others
                                          are without such controversy as the evolutuon/creation arena.

                                          > > Regarding the Holocaust, there are *many* who claim it never
                                          > > happened. And I do not see anyone making a media frenzy over or a
                                          > law
                                          > > against their right to ask about it in school, which I am sure
                                          has
                                          > > happened.
                                          >
                                          > Well they are not trying to use politics to get it taught in the
                                          > schools, but based on creationist arguments about "freedom of
                                          > speech", it would be perfectly acceptable to introduce topics like
                                          > that in the classroom as competeting points of view. We would have
                                          > to spend the time evaluating all the evidence for and against it
                                          and
                                          > let the kids decide if it happened or not. For those kids who do
                                          not
                                          > think it happened, then we would have to offer alternative history
                                          > classes that would base history on a 'non-holocaust' perspecitve as
                                          > so much interpetation is based on there actually being a holocaust.
                                          >

                                          I doubt that very much. History is history. An much of it is made up
                                          and embellished.

                                          I am not here saying creationism is science, though. But that the
                                          analogy is not very valid.

                                          >
                                          > > > > But since questioning this particular scientific theory tends
                                          > to
                                          > > > draw
                                          > > > > out the religious implications behind it, it becomes a legal
                                          > as
                                          > > > well
                                          > > > > as academic issue.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > What questions tend to draw out religious implications. Is it
                                          > the
                                          > > > one where it is asked: "How did Noah feed the dinosaurs?" or
                                          is
                                          > it
                                          > > > the one "Why did donkeys and serpents talk in the past, but
                                          > don't
                                          > > > now?". Or is it: "Why did God make communicable diseases?"
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Now you are merely misdirecting the issue.
                                          >
                                          > Feel free to restate what the issue is. I am trying to figure out
                                          > what your point is, when the is nothing that says a person can't
                                          ask
                                          > questions. The examples I gave above show that some questions are
                                          > inapproriate for science classes, but if you think otherwise, then
                                          > exlplain yourself
                                          >

                                          I will be wasting my fingers. I have made my point very clearly
                                          several times. You keep trying to obscure it with your tactics.

                                          > > > > Your questions and reasoning also seems to imply that the
                                          > theory
                                          > > > of
                                          > > > > biological evolution is flawless and should be without
                                          > question.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Nope. Let me say it clearly:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Evolution, like ALL scientific theories is not flawless.
                                          > Evolution,
                                          > > > like ALL scientific theories should be questioned and tested.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Then why do these people feel the need to request the legal right
                                          > to
                                          > > ask?
                                          >
                                          > Its a strategy to get creationism introduced into the science
                                          > classroom.
                                          >

                                          I saw no creation anything in the text. And you prove my point about
                                          the assumption of who is asking the questions and requesting the
                                          rights.

                                          >
                                          > > > > This is the dictatorial part.
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Sorry if it seems that way. Now you know that evolution should
                                          > be
                                          > > > questioned, do you have any questions?
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > As I mentioned above, I am no sceintist. I do not know of any
                                          > > questions. I dropped in to learn and to see what others think. I
                                          > saw
                                          > > this particular post, read the article, and thought I'd mention a
                                          > few
                                          > > thoughts.
                                          >
                                          > Well it would be worth it to find out what particular questions
                                          > can't be asked. Then those people that came up with this bill may
                                          > have an issue. As I said, there is nothing wrong with questioning
                                          > scientific theories.
                                          >
                                          > > How about you? Do *you* have any questions regarding anything you
                                          > > might find is a flaw in the theory of biological evolution?
                                          >
                                          > No, no questions at this moment.
                                          >

                                          I am not surprised. My assumption therefore is you believe evolution
                                          to be flawless.

                                          I must give you respect and kudos for being honest on the last reply.
                                          Thank you.

                                          Robert.
                                        • seekeththee
                                          ... Since you don t know of the questions that supposedly can t be asked, then how do you know it should exist? I am not jumping to conclusions about something
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Apr 14, 2008
                                            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                                            <bingy020@...> wrote:


                                            > I beg your pardon? As I said above, if what you say is correct, then
                                            > this whole thing would not exist. Since it *does* exist, there must
                                            > be a problem with legitimate questioning against evolution. I merely
                                            > provided a hypothesis of why it would be necessary.
                                            >
                                            > You are jumping to conclusions and exagerrating the points made.

                                            Since you don't know of the questions that supposedly can't be asked,
                                            then how do you know it should exist?

                                            I am not jumping to conclusions about something I don't know.

                                            In case you are unaware, the assault on science by creationists has
                                            been going on a long time. I am not jumping to a conclusion when the
                                            fact is that it singles out only evolution.


                                            > > > Ah but wait, who are
                                            > > > the ones generally claiming flaws in evolution? Creationists.
                                            > >
                                            > > What flaws? Of course creationists are going to claim that, but
                                            > > that doesn't mean there are no flaws.
                                            >
                                            > What are you asking here?

                                            I am asking you what are the flaws of evolution?

                                            I am saying that creationists are going to claim there are flaws no
                                            matter what because evolution goes against their religious belief. I
                                            am saying that just because they do that does not mean there are
                                            flaws, because all scientific theories, are going to have flaws
                                            because they can't explain everything, not because they are completely
                                            wrong.

                                            So again, I am asking you what flaws?

                                            > > > Now we
                                            > > > must do as everyone does ("one person ruins it for all of us"),
                                            > > ban
                                            > > > *all* questioning of evolution from *anyone*, as I summarized
                                            > > above.
                                            > >
                                            > > No, as a scientific theory, evolution, like all science must
                                            > > continually be questioned and tested.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Of course. This is supposed to be true for all science. Yet, we have
                                            > this allegedly unnecessary bill. There must be a reason.

                                            Of course there is a reason. Its another attempt to get creationism
                                            into the classroom.

                                            >I do not
                                            > believe that they are making such waves for no reason at all.

                                            Creationists want to get creationism in the classroom, or evolution
                                            out of it. Court case after court case, bill after bill, they are not
                                            going to give up.

                                            > >
                                            > > > > > But question biological evolution, where the only other
                                            > > > > alternative
                                            > > > > > is creation or ID, and all you-know-what breaks loose.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > No it doesn't. Go ahead and question evolution, see what
                                            > happens.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Many of us do here. And see what happens? We're idiots and nuts
                                            > > and
                                            > > > delusional and... do I need to continue?
                                            > > >
                                            > > > > Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory, so it can't be an
                                            > > > > alternative.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > No one is saying that here. Is this a bill for creation/ID?
                                            > >
                                            > > According to the writer, she says this bill is for freedom of
                                            > speech.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > OK. Thefore there *must* be a restriction on the freedom of speech of
                                            > some kind.

                                            Really? What is it? Of course every bill introduced has a reason and
                                            agenda behind it.



                                            > > I am trying to figure out what you are saying.
                                            > >
                                            > > You won't explain what the questions or flaws are, yet you say
                                            > there
                                            > > are flaws. Well, every theory has some flaws, or can't explain
                                            > > certain aspects about nature. But that doesn't mean that everything
                                            > > else it explains is wrong.
                                            > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > No, I personally did not say there were specific flaws. You are
                                            > putting words in my mouth. Yet what I *did* say was that all theories
                                            > have flaws. I *did* say that there might be some flaws in evolution
                                            > and those are what are desired to being questioned. Yet one must
                                            > accept those parts that are not flawed.
                                            >
                                            > Please remember the things I say and do not pick out of context.

                                            So why question evolution and not physics too? Why don't people
                                            continually bring up the flaws in physics? The reason is because there
                                            are no competing theories of science at this time to address those flaws.

                                            The same is for evolution. Unless you think creationism is an
                                            alternative to science?


                                            > > > > But as you conceeded, the issue of common descent does not have
                                            > > any
                                            > > > > flaws. The issue of how evolution works, how new traits arise
                                            > > and
                                            > > > > are selected are what is the issue. Creationism/ID can't
                                            > address
                                            > > > > that and give any answers.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Where did I conceed *that*??
                                            > >
                                            > > I said: "The main part of his theory, descent with modification
                                            > > has never had a problem though."
                                            > > and you said: "Of course. It is a broad theory that has support.
                                            > > Broad theories generally do."
                                            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondebate/message/62607
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Those are two different things. I did not conceed to "common
                                            > descent", but stated that, in other words, "descent with
                                            > modification" was a broad theory that can have support.

                                            Oh. Before it was "that has support", now its "that can have support"

                                            Whatever. It has support.


                                            > > You can question all you want. If a person is lablled on the side
                                            > of
                                            > > ID, so what? Questions raised by creatoinists have been answered,
                                            > > yet they keep asking as if that is supposed to change the answer.
                                            > >
                                            > > What is illegal, is to teach creationism.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Exactly, as I stated above. And anyone asking a question against
                                            > evolution is immediately classed as a creationist, therefore the
                                            > question is illegal to ask.

                                            Its illegal to teach creationism. Its not illegal for a creationist to
                                            ask questions. This bill as I understand is directed to educators, who
                                            want to introduce creationism.

                                            > > > One must therefore request LEGAL action in order to ask a
                                            > > legitimate
                                            > > > scientific question.
                                            > >
                                            > > It is already legal to ask legitimate scientific questions.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Evidently not in the evolution arena, otherwise one would not need to
                                            > request legal action.

                                            > When one poses a new hyothesis in evolution, the questions are asked
                                            > which try to validate or invalidate it. When validated it therefore
                                            > becomes an accepted theory, until something is discovered that
                                            > invalidates or modifies the theory.
                                            >
                                            > Yet, when one wants to question the accepted theory of evolution and
                                            > believes they have evidence that might suggest it being incorrect,
                                            > there is an immediate assumption that the person must have a
                                            > creationist agenda, and is therefore barred from raising the
                                            > questions. It actually does happen in other fields of science. One
                                            > must have a PhD or be associated with a popular scientist in order to
                                            > get their ideas even looked at (except in astronomy, where they
                                            > wholely accept amateurs, since having as many eyes in the sky is very
                                            > important to the research). This is common knowledge. Yet the others
                                            > are without such controversy as the evolutuon/creation arena.

                                            If you are going to raise such questions, to the point you suggest
                                            that a new theory be looked at, then you had better come with some
                                            data and a testable hypothesis.

                                            Its that simple. Creationist have brought there objections, they have
                                            brought what little of hypothesis they have, and it has been determine
                                            to be by the scientific community and the court of law to be
                                            unscientific. Why do we keep addressing the same crap over and over as
                                            if something changed?


                                            > > > Regarding the Holocaust, there are *many* who claim it never
                                            > > > happened. And I do not see anyone making a media frenzy over or a
                                            > > law
                                            > > > against their right to ask about it in school, which I am sure
                                            > has
                                            > > > happened.
                                            > >
                                            > > Well they are not trying to use politics to get it taught in the
                                            > > schools, but based on creationist arguments about "freedom of
                                            > > speech", it would be perfectly acceptable to introduce topics like
                                            > > that in the classroom as competeting points of view. We would have
                                            > > to spend the time evaluating all the evidence for and against it
                                            > and
                                            > > let the kids decide if it happened or not. For those kids who do
                                            > not
                                            > > think it happened, then we would have to offer alternative history
                                            > > classes that would base history on a 'non-holocaust' perspecitve as
                                            > > so much interpetation is based on there actually being a holocaust.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > I doubt that very much. History is history. An much of it is made up
                                            > and embellished.
                                            >
                                            > I am not here saying creationism is science, though. But that the
                                            > analogy is not very valid.

                                            The analogy is that history is history and science is science.
                                            Creationism is not science, and whether you deny it or not, many
                                            questions entertain creationism as science. Just like many questions
                                            in history can entertain embellishments as being true.


                                            > > Feel free to restate what the issue is. I am trying to figure out
                                            > > what your point is, when the is nothing that says a person can't
                                            > ask
                                            > > questions. The examples I gave above show that some questions are
                                            > > inapproriate for science classes, but if you think otherwise, then
                                            > > exlplain yourself
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > I will be wasting my fingers. I have made my point very clearly
                                            > several times. You keep trying to obscure it with your tactics.

                                            LOL

                                            You look at the amount of wasted time you spent replying to all my
                                            "obscuring tactics", and couldn't even type a few sentences on what
                                            the issue is? Good grief! You just want to be oppositional! You ARE
                                            a creationists aren't you?



                                            > > Its a strategy to get creationism introduced into the science
                                            > > classroom.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > I saw no creation anything in the text. And you prove my point about
                                            > the assumption of who is asking the questions and requesting the
                                            > rights.

                                            You prove my point that it is, when you can't even tell me what
                                            questions are being raised that this bill is supposed to protect.
                                            Didn't you say this bill had a reason? Yet you don't even know what
                                            the questions are?



                                            > > > How about you? Do *you* have any questions regarding anything you
                                            > > > might find is a flaw in the theory of biological evolution?
                                            > >
                                            > > No, no questions at this moment.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > I am not surprised. My assumption therefore is you believe evolution
                                            > to be flawless.

                                            Oh, I know the flaws, I just have any questions for you. I suppose if
                                            I were an evolutionists studying evolution then I would be more
                                            interested.

                                            > I must give you respect and kudos for being honest on the last reply.

                                            Wish I could say the same for you.

                                            Truman
                                          • seekeththee
                                            ... I found this link that gives a little background to the bill, and bills like it, so you understand why I and others hold the position I do about it.
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Apr 15, 2008
                                              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "bingy020"
                                              <bingy020@...> wrote:


                                              > > Well, you got that right, but the problem is the bill being
                                              > > introduced, is trying to hide under the guise of "freedom of
                                              > > speech". If you would have read the first post I made, you will
                                              > find
                                              > > that the sponsor of that bill does not want it to look like
                                              > > evolution vs creation, and does not want to suggest that
                                              > > creationism/ID should be taught in school.
                                              > >
                                              > > But I guess you saw right through that, and know what here motives
                                              > > are, didn't you?
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > So, is it a religious group that is fighting to have this bill
                                              > ratified? I did not get that indication. Why do you?
                                              >
                                              > This is the prejudice of which I am speaking. Instantly you assume it
                                              > is a religious fight. Thank you for providing evidence to support my
                                              > statement.

                                              I found this link that gives a little background to the bill, and
                                              bills like it, so you understand why I and others hold the position I
                                              do about it. Whether you are a creationist, or evolutionist, or
                                              something in between, there are patterns that you seem to be either
                                              ignorant of or pretending you are oblivious to it.

                                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Freedom_bills

                                              Truman
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.