|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2004 : 07:23:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
The 'textbook' theory of evolution is a direct challenge to the authors of the textbooks. As I was taught in HS, in a unit on biological evolution, it included chemical and cosmic. Perhaps if the authors could portray the truth accurately, I wouldn't need to be offering challenges to these authors. The day Ken Miller gets his facts straight is the day I will take down that challenge, until then, my offer is valid to him and any other textbook author that distorts what biological evolution is.
If one knows the difference between biological and cosmic evolution, for an example, then they realize why the challenge is wrong. However, by realizing that they also must realize that some textbooks authors are also distorting things. Thus my argument is not against those who are knowledgeable.
Hi, TK. I'm curious about some of your charges directed at, among others, Ken Miller. I had a look at some of the textbooks he's done, and none of them seem to match the claims you're making. for instance, in what Miller calls The Dragonfly Book (perhaps because the cover features a nice photo of a dragonfly), the table of contents mentions nothing about cosmology.
Miller is a professor at Brown University. I had a look at his syllabus for the introductory bilology class he teaches there. Looking through it, I again noticed nothing that has to do with cosmology.
Sure, both the text and the class do devote a little time to basic chemistry, but I don't thing that asking students to know that an atom is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons, or that there are 90 naturally occuring elements, is a crazy thing to teach in a class on biology. (After all, at some point things like carbon and water come into play in biology.)
So, where do you get the idea that Miller is linking the origins of the universe, or even the origins of life on earth, to Darwinian evolution? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/25/2004 07:25:41 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 10:19:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
The big bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. It should be more clear to HS students though, and it isn't.
This is extremely general and, from my experiences, wrong. The only ones who I've ever seen try to mix the two subjects are Creationists, since their origin myth covers both the creation of the universe and mankind within the span of a few days.
Can you provide even one statement from a H.S. text book that directly links the Big Bang with biological evolution? Or does your entire premise rest on the fact that the H.S. students you've talked to tend to become confused on the issues? Because there will always be poor students who fail to grasp the material, but that doesn't mean the texts are to blame. A large percentage of American H.S. students can't point to Vietnam on a map. Does that mean H.S. maps are inaccurate?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/25/2004 10:27:01 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 10:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Hurricane Charlie was cleary a very intricate and well orginized weather system. I don't know if you realize it but a hurricane is essentially a huge engine. Clearly (according to you) this could not just happen by chance. It MUST have been built by someone. Humans can build computers but not something as large or COMPLICATED as a hurricane. So this hurricane was built by some psycho bent on death and destruction. I figure it was either God or aliens. Which of these 2 capricious phsycos do you think it was?
Great question! |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 11:41:51 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN tk.
quote:
From www.skeptictimes.com/evolution101.html :One of the most well-known controversies today is Creation vs. Evolution.
The controversy exists primarily in the minds of creationists. You percieve it as a threat to your ideology. Almost every creationist I have ever spoken to has had at best a poor understanding of evolution. Mostly, like you, they seem to repeat the dogmatic nonsense that their fundamentalist sundayschool teachers have poured into their heads.
quote:
From www.skeptictimes.com/evolution101.html :
Argument Two: [A Certain Creationist] doesn't have a genuine PhD or didn't pay his taxes, or has an honorary PhD from Berkeley or etc.
This is just funny. Does this have anything to do with science at all? No. If one of the Creationists doesn't have a genuine PhD, then these Evolutionists should eat Creationists up. Evolutionists should desire to debate Creationists to show how ignorant they are.
Yet it is the very opposite:
Evolutionists are too scared to debate because they are exposed for frauds during debates.
Evolutionists get refuted right and left in debates.
Evolutionists are exposed for knowing very little about science in debates.
Evolutionists have very few sources to back up any of their claims.
Evolutionists are seen by the public as liars in debates.
And that leaves them with one and only one tactic: Personal attacks. Well here's some advice for any evolutionist reading this site: If you want to show you know science then use it, but personal attacks only are evidence that you are getting refuted right and left and therefore must resort to a lower level.
But of course, that is all obvious. Evolutionists don't know anything about science, and thus they must resort to personal attacks in public debates. Incidentally, if there is ever a Creation and Evolution debate in your city, check it out as it is always funny to see Evolutionists get refuted.
Yes, all that's left to us after reading that is a personal attack....
Have you ever read anything that has to do with the factual basis for evolution?
Are you unaware of the manifold examples of speciation that we have observed first hand in the last century?
What is the factual basis for your claims that "evolutionists" get refuted left and right, are exposed for knowing very little about science in debates.
, have very few sources to back up any of their claims, and are too scared to debate because they are exposed for frauds during debates?
quote:
From www.skeptictimes.com/evolution101.html :
Argument Three: Creationists don't do any experiments.
This is another lie. I am a Creationists and have done many experiments. Are they published? Of course not, I dare you to try to publish a Creationist article in any science magazine. They are incredibly biased in favor of evolution.
Incidentally, I happen to know a couple of Creationists who have published articles in science magazines. They have told me that they keep their "Creation view" a secret because if the magazine were to find out, they would be banned. This has happened numberless times to Creationists. Dr. Kent Hovind has a list of Creationists who've encountered trouble for promoting Intelligent Design. Contact his ministry and they'll give you a list of people you can call or contact.
By the way, an Evolutionist, Dr. Weisenburg, said that Creation should be kept from any science magazine. So even the Evolutionists admit they have a bias, and yet they can't even back their view up in a debate.
What experiments have you done? Feel free share the details as this is not a refereed scientific journal. I think most people here would be interested in a description of your experiments. Just post them on your own site and than post a link to them here.
I'd go on further, but your page devolves into a series of personal attacks, which you call foul on "evolutionists" for using and then procede to use them yourself. Then you call evolution a myth, call a professor a coward and take his refusal to debate as defacto proof that your opinion is right....
Also, on your million dollar offer page, you need to state which textbook offers the definition of evolution you are referring to.
quote:
1. The Universe came from nothing without the work of a supernatural force.
2. All life originated from non-living matter.
3. All plants and all animals have one common ancestor.
Sounds like your sundayschool textbook definition of evolution.
Clearly you are a very credulous person, and you have some deep seated religious beliefs. I'd reccomend that you learn to sort fact from fiction however. I'm skeptical of your alledged skepticism. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 12:09:22 [Permalink]
|
I, like others, am skeptical of the alleged satiric nature of The Skeptic Times. Satirizing something doesn't mean that one simply imitates it.
Well, that's assuming that tkster is satirizing creationism, but that's really what's in question here. Just what the heck is supposed to be satirized by The Skeptic Times? It is not clear, and the hallmark of a successful satire is that the audience can get the joke. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 14:13:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
tk my friend, I'm not too smart and have a poor, formal education. So sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. Is the site something of a spoof, or are you indeed a Young Earth Creationist? Either way of course, you're welcome here. Without fun and dissenting opinions, the world would be very dull.
I will agree that many HS textbooks are a pile of crap, including some that my grandkids have shown me (and the school headr about it, too).
Set me straight, bro; where're ya comin' from?
Okay, so a lot of posts, and I'll try to reply in order.
When people ask me if I am a YEC, I do not have a definite position as that would take a stand on the age of the Earth. I like the term Intelligent Design Theorist. When it comes down to it though, if I get labeled YEC I'll take the label, though I prefer the other.
Cuneiformist about your post, Kenneth Miller had written one of the books in my H.S. and did not separate the terms. That was 4 to 5 years ago. The textbooks I look at are usually HBJ and Glencoe, which are two big ones around here.
Someone said:
quote:
Yes, all that's left to us after reading that is a personal attack....
Have you ever read anything that has to do with the factual basis for evolution?
Are you unaware of the manifold examples of speciation that we have observed first hand in the last century?
This is a direct attack against the evolutionists that won't back up their claims. I am from Texas Tech, and as some know, we had a problem like this with a professor who discriminated against those who were religious. However, he never backed up his statements in a debate after he was offered 1000 dollars for it.
quote:
Sounds like your sundayschool textbook definition of evolution.
Clearly you are a very credulous person, and you have some deep seated religious beliefs. I'd reccomend that you learn to sort fact from fiction however. I'm skeptical of your alledged skepticism.
Textbook evolution again, yes, that is NOT biological evolution and if you notice I never say it is.
quote:
What experiments have you done? Feel free share the details as this is not a refereed scientific journal. I think most people here would be interested in a description of your experiments. Just post them on your own site and than post a link to them here.
Yes, I will have some experiments I've done at my site. :D
quote:
Can you provide even one statement from a H.S. text book that directly links the Big Bang with biological evolution? Or does your entire premise rest on the fact that the H.S. students you've talked to tend to become confused on the issues? Because there will always be poor students who fail to grasp the material, but that doesn't mean the texts are to blame. A large percentage of American H.S. students can't point to Vietnam on a map. Does that mean H.S. maps are inaccurate?
HBJ from what I have seen is the leader. Any HS biology course with HBJ as I know they were a culprit when I was in school. Again, this is mixing and matching I detest.
quote:
Well, that's assuming that tkster is satirizing creationism, but that's really what's in question here. Just what the heck is supposed to be satirized by The Skeptic Times? It is not clear, and the hallmark of a successful satire is that the audience can get the joke.
The actual newsletter is a satire on ... everything. There is no limit to what we poke fun of. For example, this next newsletter we are scamming the infamous Nigerian Scam people. It's mostly to make people and students laugh, as it is clearly free.
Sorry, my explanations are always brief as I like it that way. Either way, I hope I got it. Either way, I do look forward to reading some stuff here as I saw this when I typed "skeptic times" in google. So, this should have some good information to read.
take care,
tk |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 14:31:08 [Permalink]
|
So where's the million dollars? A million dollar offer reeks of fraud without the million bucks. You have a lawyer yet? Yikes, you poor bastard.
I also recommend you don't show anyone your site if you hope to get a degree in biology.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:06:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
(Psssst, author of www.skeptictimes.com)
TK, having read much your website I believe that it is going to be difficult to take you seriously as a skeptic. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:11:43 [Permalink]
|
I like it how it's called "'Skeptic' Times". Heh. I only hope it wont fool anyone.
quote:
Challenge One:
[...]
1. The Universe came from nothing without the work of a supernatural force.
2. All life originated from non-living matter.
3. All plants and all animals have one common ancestor.
1. One can't prove that the universe was not invented by a supernatural force, and it doesn't matter cause noone has to. However, those who insist on introducing this supernatural force without the need to, has the burden of proof. But you knew that already, didn't you? Yes, of course you did.
2. Of course it did come from non-living matter. Or are you honestly suggesting that life has always existed in this universe? Are you suggesting that you never eat?
quote:
[...]However, before you submit evidence, the following listed will be discounted:
1. You can not set up an experiment to prove any of this. That is intelligent design, not blind chance.
What does that have to do with anything? What does design performed by humans have to do with supernatural forces? Who says everything must be because of blind chance or supernatural forces and nothing else?
quote:
2. There must be no assumptions as a part of your evidence. I do not think we "must" assume so we can know about the past. The past is the past, and thus any idea is religious.
You mean the same way that you would never assume some fictious supernatural force? Oh, ok.
quote:
3. Your evidence will be viewed by a team of scientists and five skeptics. If they think your evidence is trash, you lose.
This offer proves that the textbook theory of evolution is nothing short of a religion that should be taught in a church made up of ignorant atheists. This textbook theory of evolution is what is currently in the present and past being portrayed in public school textbooks.
Why do you insist on decieving people into thinking that scientific theories are religions? What could you possibly gain on lying to people, and doing so intentionally and knowingly?
quote:
Challenge Two:
You must disprove tk's Argument of Design without any design. tk's Argument of Design is the following:
Computers, cars, streets, buildings, trains, etc have all been built. There is nothing in the Universe that would indicate blind chance as a "maker" of anything. Thus since we all see designed materials and nothing else to our knowledge, the universe must have been designed by a Creator.
Who said that the universe and anything in it must be either designed or the result of complete randomness? I meant to say, who ever said such a thing except you?
quote:
There is one catch to this all: you cannot use any design to refute tk's Argument of Design. If you submit an argument, your argument has been designed; any language you use, is designed; an email, that's been designed; a phone call, your phone was designed; a paper with words, that's been designed. Now you might think, "if I don't argue, I win." The problem is that is not acceptable, you must argue against the argument of Design without anything that has been designed and prove that Design did not make this world.
Well, unlike Kent Hovind you're at least honest and upfront regarding the built-in impossibility of your challenge. But of course that changes absolutely nothing.
quote:
For an atheist to use design against tk's Argument of Design would make the atheist a hypocrite.
That's wrong and you probably know it.
quote:
Since atheists are always saying "Christians are such hypocrites," they must try to disprove this challenge without being hypocritical themselves. My point here is to establish that atheists are actually the ultimate hypocrites as they continually throughout life argue against Design with design. For further reading on this please read Romans 1.
This must surely be a joke, though a terribly unfunny one. You simply can't be serious when you say that just because we don't believe some god invented the universe, we don't think we can design things. What interesting substances are you on, in how many states is it illegal, and where can I get some of the same stuff?
quote:
This is another lie. I am a Creationists and have done many experiments. Are they published? Of course not, I dare you to try to publish a Creationist article in any science magazine. They are incredibly biased in favor of evolution.
I think you should try and publish a paper on the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the easter bunny or the validity of the Norse creation myths. I predict anyone with half an education would laugh in your face, or perhaps look at you with horror as they realize that people actually believe fairytales to be true.
"Skeptic", eh? I hope that your site is some bizarre joke, otherwise you're simply trying to fool people that you really are a skeptic. It's the same dishonest tactic used by proponents of pseudoscience, that is, to pretend to know what he/she is talking about, and trying to make it sound scientifically valid. Such dishonesty is completely repulsive. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 08/25/2004 15:16:27 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:28:05 [Permalink]
|
If he gets to decide what a skeptic is then he may well be one. One definition I found defines a skeptic as one that denies the existence of a creator. Does that fit? I think most modern skeptics would agree that a skeptic employs critical thinking which tkster seems to have thrown out the window.
tkster is not a skeptic if he is defending a belief and not searching for the truth. His entire site seems devoted to means of obstructing a search for truth. It's a dishonest site and to call yourself a skeptic after building such a dishonest site is itself dishonest.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 15:56:35 [Permalink]
|
I am thinking the word fraud fits here. Dishonest is also good. Cheat is another goodie. Hell, I could sit here with a thesaurus all day and type out good ones. It's sad that he's probably all smug about it and has no idea that he acts like a criminal.
But we all know otherwise. Everyone knows.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
