tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4187365780576446480..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Advice to New Creationist StudentsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5858165700900762452012-08-05T05:29:25.493-04:002012-08-05T05:29:25.493-04:00As I see it, Darwin's key error was the assump...As I see it, Darwin's key error was the assumption that the variation exhibited by organisms to create new breeds could be extrapolated ad infinitum. I believe that although there is variation, organisms reproduce "after their kind" as Genesis says. The fossilized organisms that he regarded as ancestors of today's organisms, I regard as the extinct flora and fauna of a destroyed prehistoric age. <br /><br />As with politics, left and right interpret the same "facts" and reach opposite conclusions. Why don't we agree to disagree?John thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39296841631670505432012-08-04T19:39:48.394-04:002012-08-04T19:39:48.394-04:00I am not surprised, John, that you would be stupid...I am not surprised, John, that you would be stupid enough to say that. After all imbecilic, misinformed, and contradictory "ideas" populate your mind at astounding levels. It is logically impossible to accept the facts of science and still accept a literal reading of genesis. I suspect that you have a rather liberal definition of either "facts of science," of "literal reading of genesis," or both. <br /><br />(Larry still answered your mistaken claim that here "creationist" meant OEC.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36824226928145805252012-08-04T18:36:36.102-04:002012-08-04T18:36:36.102-04:00Speaking of "revealing ignorance" -- th...Speaking of "revealing ignorance" -- the article "What is Creationism?" that you cite makes the following erroneous statement: "Old Earth Creationists are creationists who accept some parts of science and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis."<br /><br />As an old-earth or "gap theory" creationist, I personally, along with Rev William Buckalnd, Oxford's very first professor of geology, accept the facts of science and a literal reading of Genesis. <br /><br />Sadly, like evolutionists, creationists are also divided in their views.John Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71660802430895759642012-08-04T16:16:57.111-04:002012-08-04T16:16:57.111-04:00I think its because he, O'Leary and Luskin hav...<i> I think its because he, O'Leary and Luskin have over the years worked themselves up into believing an alternate-universe scenario where evil, lying atheist professors indoctrinate university students like Marine Drill instructors.</i><br /><br />You're probably right. In another part of their alternative universe, the churches and synagogues are places where free and open debate is the norm and anyone can challenge the leaders without fear of punishment.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40574465871406397512012-08-04T16:11:15.885-04:002012-08-04T16:11:15.885-04:00There is no such thing as junk DNA.
Thanks for le...<i>There is no such thing as junk DNA.</i><br /><br />Thanks for letting us know.<br /><br />Are you an IDiot or just an idiot?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70743923788370908402012-08-04T16:09:29.830-04:002012-08-04T16:09:29.830-04:00John Thomas reveals his ignorance by saying,
Sadl...John Thomas reveals his ignorance by saying,<br /><br /><i>Sadly, in the media and apparently on his blog, "creationism" has come to mean young-earth creationism.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2011/10/intelligent-design-version-of.html" rel="nofollow">The "Intelligent Design" Version of Creationism</a><br /><br /><a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/08/what-is-creationism.html" rel="nofollow">What Is Creationism?</a>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53465487865081450582012-08-04T15:57:57.112-04:002012-08-04T15:57:57.112-04:00Thanks. I suspected that he had been to university...Thanks. I suspected that he had been to university but I couldn't find any mention of it on the internet. I guess IDiots don't list their degrees unless they have at least two Ph.D.sLarry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40075161351435689152012-08-04T15:55:50.283-04:002012-08-04T15:55:50.283-04:00"...don't ever take a biology class—it mi...<i>"...don't ever take a biology class—it might turn you into an atheist..."</i><br /><br />I apologize to the irony deficient. I meant that sarcastically.<br /><br />However, fundamentalist Christians really are afraid of science. They know that science directly refutes many of their core beliefs and if they expose their children to the truth, who know what might happen. It's well known that some fundamentalist Christian children abandon their faith entirely once they learn that their parents and pastors have been lying to them. <br /><br />David Klinghoffer has a point. Universities are dangerous places for creationists.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22719256230784214942012-08-04T13:18:02.757-04:002012-08-04T13:18:02.757-04:00As usual, Mr. Denny displays his total and complet...As usual, Mr. Denny displays his total and complete ignorance of evolution. Evolution doesn't make predictions? How about this portion of a lecture by biologist Ken Miller. Sounds like a prediction to me.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkkSLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50369445138309678002012-08-04T10:56:16.806-04:002012-08-04T10:56:16.806-04:00While not a fan of Klinghoffer I didn’t find this ...While not a fan of Klinghoffer I didn’t find this post of his too unreasonable. It seems to me very little of it had to do with the veracity of evolution/ID and most of it was practical advice. Larry is right; professors like to be challenged- but in lit and philosophy classes mostly. Its one thing to challenge a profs interpretation of some element of Crime and Punishment and another entirely to challenge your freshman Bio or Physics prof on some unassailable fact of the universe.... so in that sense Klinghoffer was reasonable.<br />I teach biology labs at a state university branch campus. We get our share of nuisance students and a fair number of open creationists and I strongly doubt any of our faculty has ever graded them unfairly as a result. If Klinghoffers advice was overly cautious I think its because he, O'Leary and Luskin have over the years worked themselves up into believing an alternate-universe scenario where evil, lying atheist professors indoctrinate university students like Marine Drill instructors<br />RodWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42594376554245526822012-08-03T21:59:51.371-04:002012-08-03T21:59:51.371-04:00Why would a biology class turn someone into an ath...<i>Why would a biology class turn someone into an atheist? How can biology affect religion?</i><br /><br />If this is a serious question, the answer is easy: How do you think we got here? Biochemistry and genetics, or The Big Guy In The Sky blowing on a handful of dust? Biology leaves The Big Guy unemployed, or as some old French guy once said, "I have no need of that hypothesis."Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16662426706465877162012-08-03T21:07:57.874-04:002012-08-03T21:07:57.874-04:00I have to apologize, BB. I admit I find it a bit p...I have to apologize, BB. I admit I find it a bit perplexing too. What exactly does he mean by this odd twist of a phrase?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91669633911886721832012-08-03T21:06:46.100-04:002012-08-03T21:06:46.100-04:00Sorry Denny, but the reason for your misperception...Sorry Denny, but the reason for your misperception is that you think that evolution is still a theory under test. No serious scientist thinks of evolution as something that has to be proven anymore. Thus, you will often see tests about how fast, or what mechanisms, and how much each mechanism contributes to evolution. Predictions from evolution are no longer in the realm of being a main subject for an article, but will be buried within articles solving other kinds of problems. When predictions are the main subject of an article it is, again, predictions testing one mode against another. For example, whether something is explained by common descent compared to it being explained by convergent evolution. Or tests about whether something comes from neutral evolution or else from positive selection. All of this because evolution is a pretty well established theory.<br /><br />You should be warned that holding to a middle school definition of science, or worse, an encyclopaedia definition, is insufficient to judge science. To actually understand science you have to study it a lot more than that.<br /><br />As for RTB, well, they try hard to discredit evolutionary theory on the basis of such limited definitions of science, and on the basis of calling everything they do not like in science "evolution," even when it is geology or some other field of science that they are talking about. RTB, like ICR, is a propaganda machine. Much better done that ICR, but still creationist propaganda. I often use this web site to train students to learn how science should not be done. Example, not by starting with descriptions of evil evolutionists holding to something because they hate "God," then misrepresenting what evolutionary science actually is, and not by basing their research on quotes and abstracts, but rather on the data. I have found that after checking that kind of crap, where rhetorics and bad methods are so clear and easy to spot, the students develop quite a good sense for detecting crap, and they are ready to also check actual published articles, scientific ones, and detect whether there are problems in such published literature too.<br /><br />I hope that answers your question. I am not Larry, but I do present my students with such crap as RTB.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57813444941881894952012-08-03T19:18:15.608-04:002012-08-03T19:18:15.608-04:00You have started quite wrong with your facts alrea...You have started quite wrong with your facts already. Scientists don't think that non-coding DNA is junk (you equated them, and scientists don't do that). Scientists know about regulatory sequences. Even accounting for such, there is such a lot of, at least apparent, wasteland, that this indicates quite strongly that there is both, selfish (undeniably there), and junk DNA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64304421695998608322012-08-03T19:15:29.574-04:002012-08-03T19:15:29.574-04:00Shit Thomas, you deserve nothing but mockery man. ...Shit Thomas, you deserve nothing but mockery man. What a load of bullshit you have in your web page. I am so sorry I saw that. Instead of gap theory you should call it crap theory. That's all you deserve. Nope, you deserve truly bad, your levels of ignorance, of quackery, of self-inflicted and proud display of stupidity ... I just can't ... it is such a demented mixture of ignorance, deception (self and otherwise), snake-oil, bullshit. Man I am so lost for words that I rather ask you to go fuck yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14577991153451219652012-08-03T19:07:41.675-04:002012-08-03T19:07:41.675-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72608281877553628302012-08-03T19:01:22.438-04:002012-08-03T19:01:22.438-04:00Bullshit. I like being challenged in class. I tell...Bullshit. I like being challenged in class. I tell students that we can do a lot in class. After all, they have to cover the material by themselves before any lecture. If they don't come prepared for class, then that's too bad for them. But class is for both questions and further observation/discussion. Regurgitating the textbook is the real lecture waste of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71168395343115558612012-08-03T18:47:39.384-04:002012-08-03T18:47:39.384-04:00albus dumbledore
Ah! A real person, finally! With...albus dumbledore<br /><br />Ah! A real person, finally! With real opinions… Cool!Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20792231712937167002012-08-03T18:02:10.976-04:002012-08-03T18:02:10.976-04:00Larry: try rereading your two paragraphs immediate...Larry: try rereading your two paragraphs immediately following the Klinghoffer quote through the eyes of a quote miner - quoting this sort of thing out of context is the sort of thing your opponents tend to stoop to. I suggest using scare quotes or some other way of flagging that this is _not_ your advice.konradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57981672821574730452012-08-03T17:53:49.434-04:002012-08-03T17:53:49.434-04:00This is because Larry has spent so much time readi...This is because Larry has spent so much time reading creationist drivel that he thinks evolution is a serious challenge to theism (rather than just to creationism).konradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18752794945073077882012-08-03T17:45:03.246-04:002012-08-03T17:45:03.246-04:001) What do you think would be Darwin's (and/or...<i>1) What do you think would be Darwin's (and/or Wallace's) response to the discovery of DNA, the universal code of life on planet earth?</i><br /><br />How should I know? But the discovery did not invalidate NS or common descent, merely (along with the mathematical theory) demonstrating the medium of descent and modification. I suspect Darwin would have been delighted that blending inheritance was not an issue.<br /><br /><i>2) Why do you call Newton a moron? (Tongue in cheek)</i><br /><br />A little conceit following on from mock-chastisement of Darwin for the age-reflecting naivete of some of his ideas. <br /><br /><i>2.5) Why don't you get your own moniker?</i><br /><br />It was a slip of the (anony)mouse.albus dumbledorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58986888158005400702012-08-03T17:44:02.428-04:002012-08-03T17:44:02.428-04:00I was looking at the slide show. I do hope Laurenc...I was looking at the slide show. I do hope Laurence A. Moran does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8952449662589994692012-08-03T17:23:26.461-04:002012-08-03T17:23:26.461-04:00I wish the Anonymouses of this blog would get a re...I wish the Anonymouses of this blog would get a real moniker! That would make it A LOT EASIER to have a good discussion.Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41352097347511779852012-08-03T17:18:25.982-04:002012-08-03T17:18:25.982-04:00Anonymous wrote "For not anticipating every d...Anonymous wrote "For not anticipating every discovery of the following 150 years"<br /><br />I have 2.5 questions:<br /><br />1) What do you think would be Darwin's (and/or Wallace's) response to the discovery of DNA, the universal code of life on planet earth?<br /><br />2) Why do you call Newton a moron? (Tongue in cheek)<br /><br />2.5) Why don't you get your own moniker?Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68217505289979727492012-08-03T17:01:31.480-04:002012-08-03T17:01:31.480-04:00It was not me who said that Darwin's ideas wer...It was not me who said that Darwin's ideas were preposterous, it was Hough. He just cannot accept that every fine detail of the morphology of every organism on earth was shaped by natural selection giving the thumbs up or thumbs down to DNA copying errors when they reproduced.<br /><br />I suppose he is going back to Lamarck's ideas that organisms mutate in a constructive manner to environment pressures -- an approach that solves the problem of all those missing transitional forms. He suggests that organisms contain what he calls a "self-developing genome" that makes this possible. Just like Newton's laws removed the problem of those heavenly spheres that supposedly kept moon and planets moving.john thomasnoreply@blogger.com