|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2004 : 16:31:55 [Permalink]
|
tkster,
If you could, please post the exact title and author of the alledged textbooks that present evolution in the way you have presented it on your site. Without a specific reference, I can only assume that you are making this up as you go along.
I have never seen or been made aware of any textbook that presents evolution as you claim, outside of the usual religious sources that deliberately misrepresent evolution in an effort to discredit it.(which is what you are clearly doing on your site)
You say your a biology major.... well, quote us the definition of evolution from your college text from the basic majors bio class I'm sure you've taken. If that definition resembles the alledged "textbook" definition you present of evolution, I'll eat my shoe. In public. On tape.
Evolution is one of the underlying principles that modern biology rests on. It is so well founded in fact and evidence that only fundie lunatics deny it.
(edit for grammar/spelling) |
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/25/2004 17:49:36 |
 |
|
|
steinhenge
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 17:29:40 [Permalink]
|
| I was just checking out the forums at the Skeptic Times, and I noticed that the the pro forma "banning of the unbelievers" has already begun. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 18:06:52 [Permalink]
|
Hey filthy, it seems like tkster thinks that C14 dating has been "refuted" by creationists......
From a post of his on his own forum....
quote:
Posted by tk, on his own forum, in a post where he banned a user:
Radioactive decay has been refuted by Creationists, get over it and find a new argument.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
steinhenge
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 19:28:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by RickyIn all fairness, tk has responded in a positive way to me at the forums.
After looking a little more thoroughly (which I should have done in the first place), the banning may well have been justified on the grounds of incivility.
Question: I've mostly only lurked here so I'm not terribly informed on these things, but has anyone here ever been banned? |
|
|
|
steinhenge
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 19:40:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by steinhenge
After looking a little more thoroughly (which I should have done in the first place), the banning may well have been justified on the grounds of incivility.
Actually, since the offending posts that led to the banning were deleted it's pretty impossible to make any sort of judgment as to the validity of the banning. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 19:59:28 [Permalink]
|
All right, well I see many responses. Amazing. Unfortunately, I will re-edit this post and respond. For now I need to arrange the questions so I can respond to this.
Either way, I do always appreciate the analysis no matter what. I'd be lying if I said that I hate it when people criticize me, as in my opinion, it is a critic that is your best friend. Someone else's analysis can always make an argument stronger.
Either way, I'll get to some questions. One thing that I would like to point out, as I already have but some have missed it, is that my "million dollar offer" is NOT a challenge to biological evolution only and I never use the phrase "biological" evolution. I use "textbook." So saying "the big bang is not part of biological evolution" is wortheless, as I already know that and don't use the term "biological" anyway. Cosmic and Organic evolution are the two other listed, and though they are not a part of biological evolution, in some books they are lumped in with it.
Anyhow, let me get the other replies answered.
I'm not going to label the names, anyhow:
quote:
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.
Since many of you have missed what I have made clear bout the million dollar offer, I am not going to deal with this anymore. People of average intelligence get the offer: it is a challenge to those authors and teachers who mislead their students. If you don't do this, the offer is not for you. Since everyone around here claims to know what biological evolution is, the offer is not for you anyway!
quote:
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.
Yes please, call me names. Call me a liar and a fraud and whatever else. Not only can I handle this, I can use this. So go ahead, make your list of names you want to call me and post it.
quote:
If you could, please post the exact title and author of the alledged textbooks that present evolution in the way you have presented it on your site. Without a specific reference, I can only assume that you are making this up as you go along.
The textbook I used in high school was HBJ, it was a German name I think, hard to spell. It was a biology textbook and the year was 1998. In the unit "evolution" it covered more than biological. That is one source you can check for sure. I have seen other textbooks as well and how they portray them, but unlike my H.S. biology class never got a good look at authors and the like. Kenneth Miller was one I know who got caught several times. Also, from my experience, college textbooks tend to be more accurate. It is the JH and HS textbooks we uncover problems.
quote:
I was just checking out the forums at the Skeptic Times, and I noticed that the the pro forma "banning of the unbelievers" has already begun.
You're right, I hate atheists. I ban all atheists and evolutionists at my site. I don't allow any. My Creation vs. Evolution thread is all a lie. I really only want Creation, so I pretend. You caught me, I banned that person just because they defended evolution. I hate those people. I have no reasons at all, just hate.
*rolls eyes*
Actually, after seeing this comment, I don't know if I want to stick around here. This attack is making me out to be someone who can't handle an opposing side. I really don't know why lobster and ricky are still around then ??? And you doubt my skeptic abilities? What a joke!
Anyhow, it was nice meeting you all, I can take your critiques now and know exactly what to establish clearer in the future. However, attacking my Administrative abilities, when I am a very hard worker at being fair and balanced, has absolutely nothing to do with these issues. I would think that this should be clear, apparently it is not. I find this all very, very ironic.
take care,
tk |
| Edited by - tkster on 08/25/2004 21:56:55 |
|
|
|
steinhenge
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 22:34:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The textbook I used in high school was HBJ, it was a German name I think, hard to spell. It was a biology textbook and the year was 1998. In the unit "evolution" it covered more than biological. That is one source you can check for sure. I have seen other textbooks as well and how they portray them, but unlike my H.S. biology class never got a good look at authors and the like. Kenneth Miller was one I know who got caught several times. Also, from my experience, college textbooks tend to be more accurate. It is the JH and HS textbooks we uncover problems.
As a former educator and fiancée of (and after this Friday, "husband of"... yea!) a public school teacher, I certainly agree that texts can sometimes be dodgy at best. However, if you can't cite a specific example of a book, a page and a statement that backs up your statement, why shouldn't someone be doubtful of it?
quote:
Actually, after seeing this comment, I don't know if I want to stick around here. This attack is making me out to be someone who can't handle an opposing side. I really don't know why lobster and ricky are still around then ??? And you doubt my skeptic abilities? What a joke!
If you read my post that follows the one you are commenting on here, you see that I said this: quote:
After looking a little more thoroughly (which I should have done in the first place), the banning may well have been justified on the grounds of incivility.
I admit that I jumped the gun in my first post and for that I specifically apologize. I'm very used to seeing believer boards (and just to be clear, I'm not necessarily classifying yours as such) that immediately ban anyone who questions, however civilly, any belief held by the moderators of that board. Of course, that doesn't excuse my initial comments. Again, my apologies.
I hope you choose to post here again. I think you'll find everyone here very fair and level headed and generally much more polite than I've made them seem. They're very tolerant as well. You'll find it exceedingly difficult to get banned here. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 01:23:32 [Permalink]
|
Tk, High school text books are dumbed down in most fields. If you are concerned about what they teach on particular subjects, perhaps you should look at the broader problem.
If you want accurate science taught, then you might want to take that family wealth you say you have and invest in a doctorate level education in genetic science. That is the evolution evidence that those clinging to the nonsense of creation and intelligent design seem to be totally unaware of.
I find it odd you would be debating your high school education. Go to college. Find out about the mountains of science that high schools do not teach. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 02:10:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Hey filthy, it seems like tkster thinks that C14 dating has been "refuted" by creationists......
From a post of his on his own forum....
quote:
Posted by tk, on his own forum, in a post where he banned a user:
Radioactive decay has been refuted by Creationists, get over it and find a new argument.
Many have tried, all have failed but continue to blather about it. But I would be interested in seeing these refutations. They might have something amusing instead of merely ridiculous.
I don't recall anyone beening banned here. There have been posts deleted, a couple at my own urging -- they were pretty squirrely -- but no one got shitcanned over it. I'd prefer to keep it that way. We can take care of ourselves.
I still haven't figured out where tk is coming from. His site reads like a pretty much typical Creationist site, snarls at atheists and and so forth, but here he posts what appear to be denials.
As to having the million sheckles, who cares? As read, the challenge is no more worth taking up than "Dr." Dino's nonsense (only $250,000; what a cheapskate!), whether you're a textbook author or not. And it's unlikely that Kent has the bread either, although I'm sure he can grift it out of the faithful if called upon.
Apparently, it's all moot anyway as tk seems to have bid us a fond farewell. Some of these guys just don't got no stayin' power. Alas.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 04:12:48 [Permalink]
|
By TK's statements in his last post, it appears that y'all ran him off. Gosh, you guys are mean. He can't help it if he can't support his own challenges. It's really okay for these guys to be dishonest in support of the greater good. That is the way a good, moral person is supposed to act--Isn't it?
I'll bet he really does have that million bucks stashed away. He just doesn't want to advertise that he keeps it in coffee cans in his parent's back yard. Man, if that got out, every dishonest and freeloading atheist out there would turn up shovel in hand at his folk's house.
Seriously though, I found one particular claim to be a good example of how these people use their moral relativism to twist the truth. The only problem is, someone could make the same claim for me, because I couldn't find the original article where I read this at. I thought I got it from The Skeptic Report.
http://www.skepticreport.com/general/index.htm, but I couldn't find the story.
Anyway...The claim from TK's Evolution 101 read; quote:
Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.
This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution. Of course, what evolutionists have done is say, "anyone who doesn't accept evolution is not a scientist."
This is using a half truth to insinuate an imaginary lie.
If y'all recall, a while back, one of those west coast, right wing creationist groups ran a full page ad in the NY Times. The ad contained a list of scientists that had signed a petition that expressed their disbelief in "Darwinian evolution." When the list was checked, most of the petitioners were surprised that their signatures ended up in the ad, but didn't back off of their expressed beliefs. They accepted, as most of us here would accept, that all living organisms have changed over time and share common ancestors. But, the actual mechanisms are still being debated, and many of Darwin's theories revolving around natural selection are no longer generally accepted in science.
If the word "Darwinian" were to be removed, then I think we realize how the results of these polls would change. TK offered to remove the word "Darwinian" from his site, but hasn't and can't. If that were to happen, then the only lie would be his. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 07:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
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.
Hi, TK.
I'm concerned because, as I've shown, in his most recent textook Miller no where links the notion of biological evolution with any form of cosmological discussion. In an earlier post, you wrote:
quote:
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.
Seeing as Miller seems to have done that (see my earlier links to his most recent Dragonfly Book), perhaps you should reconsider your challenge.
I tried looking around for the two other publishers you single out, but had less luck. The Glencoe site listed and discussed a number of biology texts, but never presented a table of contents. Still, in what I read about them, I never got the impression that a discussion of the origins of the universe were part of the material.
Since I've been unable to, perhaps you could cite some examples of mainstream, up-to-date, high school or college texts where part of the discussion of life's evolution on earth is linked in some way to the universe's origins. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 10:16:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by tkster: The textbook I used in high school was HBJ, it was a German name I think, hard to spell. It was a biology textbook and the year was 1998. In the unit "evolution" it covered more than biological. That is one source you can check for sure. I have seen other textbooks as well and how they portray them, but unlike my H.S. biology class never got a good look at authors and the like. Kenneth Miller was one I know who got caught several times. Also, from my experience, college textbooks tend to be more accurate. It is the JH and HS textbooks we uncover problems.
Let me get this straight....
Your publicly stating that you disagree with a textbook, yet you can't provide a reference (title/author/publisher) for this book, AND your offering a "million dollar challenge" to anyone who can prove what this textbook says is true. But you can't even reference the textbook....
So... in reality your just deliberately misrepresenting evolution in an effort to spread your own creationist propaganda.
... |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 12:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Posted by tkster: The textbook I used in high school was HBJ, it was a German name I think, hard to spell. It was a biology textbook and the year was 1998. In the unit "evolution" it covered more than biological. That is one source you can check for sure. I have seen other textbooks as well and how they portray them, but unlike my H.S. biology class never got a good look at authors and the like. Kenneth Miller was one I know who got caught several times. Also, from my experience, college textbooks tend to be more accurate. It is the JH and HS textbooks we uncover problems.
Let me get this straight....
Your publicly stating that you disagree with a textbook, yet you can't provide a reference (title/author/publisher) for this book, AND your offering a "million dollar challenge" to anyone who can prove what this textbook says is true. But you can't even reference the textbook....
So... in reality your just deliberately misrepresenting evolution in an effort to spread your own creationist propaganda.
...
According to his own website, the works of Kent Hovind are beyond reproach and questioning the qualifications of Hovind is not allowed on his message board/may be grounds for banning. He is also using some sort of bizarre "points" system to evaluate who to ban and who to keep. 10 points for starting a thread. 1 point for every response to the new thread. 1 point for responding to an open thread. 75 points off for an "abuse" or "violation" complete with a warning.
He claims to be interested in a real debate, but puts unrealistic and invalid conditions on it to insure that his premise of Deux ex machina is affirmed at all costs. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 14:29:39 [Permalink]
|
Yes, the not allowing to attack Creationist sources was weird but I questioned tk about it:
quote:
So if you post a source that is Christian in nature and it says that a fish is the same species as a monkey, I can not attack it?
And if I find a source that is Christian in nature which supports evolution, you can not attack it?
And he replied:
quote:
Ok well if it helps you to know, I, Kevin and Jimi will deal with the fairness of that, though some of that is a little off.
Off hand I will say it is one thing to deal with science. This however: "Dr. Kent Hovind does not have a legitimate PhD" is not a part of science at all. Attacking sources that don't deal with scientific argument.
Again, we'll look into this and if it's not clear please let us know.
take care,
tk
So is just a rule against personal attack, not attacking the validity of the sources, and I have just asked him to change the wording of the rule so it is more clear. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
