RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread for Christopher Gieschen, Fossil Record Invalid?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:03   

Christopher Gieschen,

I saw you had made a comment on the Behe review page here where you say    
Quote
evolutionists will again contort their plastic theory and dating scheme and crow how science is not the search for absolute truth and is self correcting.

The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!


As has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, the article you link to at uncommondescent a few posts into this page here was shown to be a simple misunderstanding of the facts.

Now, so far so average for IDC. A quick search on the name you used for your post brings us to this chap
 
Quote
Chris Gieschen is a science teacher at Concordia Lutheran High School in Fort Wayne, IN. According to him, “One of the perks of my ministry there has been directing plays, which I have adored doing for the past 20 years.”


What I want to ask you, if that is indeed you, is how can a science teacher be fooled by the misma they spew at uncommondescent?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:06   

Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:10   

Quote
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!


You call adjusting scientific conclusions based on new findings "moving the goal posts"? Wow.

Sorry, "Scientific findings vary" does not equal "the earth must be 6,000 years old".

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

that's somewhat depressing.

Is it going up or down over time?

This guy is just annoyingly smug
Quote
What I really cannot understand is the big fuss over how one thinks/believes we got here. If God created all things, as Genesis teaches, or if we evolved by random chance mutations working over millions of years…who cares? Both can study cells, DNA, virus actions, etc. and get the same results. This is operational science.

AFAIK IDC has no labs to study DNA etc.
Quote
How can past events generate predictions? I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form. No real EVOLUTION at all.

Do all the "real experiments" include the world outside the lab too :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:18   

Quote
How can past events generate predictions? I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form. No real EVOLUTION at all.


Well, here's the trouble:

Quote
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats


He won't accept evolution til we produce a 'dat'.



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:22   

on the old newsgroups years ago the funniest thing I heard trolling around the creationist groups was "manpanzee" as in some loon would only believe in common descent if man and chimp produced "manpanzee"

Teh google now tells me they are also know as Chumans!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 26 2007,14:22)
on the old newsgroups years ago the funniest thing I heard trolling around the creationist groups was "manpanzee" as in some loon would only believe in common descent if man and chimp produced "manpanzee"

Teh google now tells me they are also know as Chumans!

Chimp + Champ = Chump.



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:29   

Living proof! I'm convinced, and coincidentally it's now time for the daily show :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 26 2007,14:22)
on the old newsgroups years ago the funniest thing I heard trolling around the creationist groups was "manpanzee" as in some loon would only believe in common descent if man and chimp produced "manpanzee"

Teh google now tells me they are also know as Chumans!




"I hate every ape I see,
from chim-pan-a, to chim-pan-zee..."


I'd be very sad if the IDCers ever quit using the 'why do we still have apes?" line.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

That's really sad for the USA.
What do you mean by "either do or would". Some of these 30% do teach antievolution? Do you have a link for this survey?

(funny, "antievolution" is in OSX spell checker, while speciation is not).

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:08   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2007,14:10)
 
Quote
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!


You call adjusting scientific conclusions based on new findings "moving the goal posts"? Wow.

He seems to imply that paleontologists adjust the dating ("dats"?) so that fossil organisms exist when they are supposed to according to the ToE. This sounds like the conspiracy theory. I'd like to see some evidence for that.

Indeed, rocks can be dated using the fossils they contain, if we already know, from absolute dating, when these organisms lived.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:24   

Dear Dr. Zavagon,

Here I am.  So I guess you can erase one doubt as I have joined.  I guess I am in need of clarification.  I am not sure what you want me to defend.  

I can tell you that I have already dealt with a professor at a state university who attacked me on a ersonal level and accused me of doing several things...which I did not do... at a science conference.

After reading my defense, he simply said that we have different philosophies of science and left it at that.  That is all I ever want from the evo. camp : admit that one can hold a different philosophy of science and still teach and do real science wtih out all the hysteria.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:32   

Ahhhhhhhh catch a whiff of the postmodernist fundie revolution!

It's our philosophies that differ!  Narcissus at his mirror could  aught but agree.  

Christopher I have not met you but I wonder what your philosophy of science is. Do tell.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:35   

*Braces for "unbound by naturalistic assumptions"*

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:09   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,13:24)
I can tell you that I have already dealt with a professor at a state university who attacked me on a ersonal level and accused me of doing several things...which I did not do... at a science conference.

After reading my defense, he simply said that we have different philosophies of science and left it at that.  

Was that a legal defense?  What exactly were you accused of?  What exactly did you not do?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:15   

To oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

First of all let me say for the record that I agree with your screen name all the way.  God is not old, He is timeless as He exists outside of this time/space universe.  Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.

I am not fooled by any misma.  But all the evidence I look at, which I interpret through my worldview lens, (All people do have a worldview lens of one sort or another.) is seen as confirming what I know to be true about origins...namely this : the universe did not put itself together, nor did the information-rich molecule DNA do so, nor are we the products of a mindless-uplanned process.

Science demands an observer and a log.  God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.  Evolution says that no one was there to observe and there is no log book (other than what we can see in nature).  Nature says that specified information does not put itself together.

I hope this explains where I am coming from.  Now please answer this.  Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:27   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
Science demands an observer and a log.  

So unobserved is not science?

I'm thinking;
  God
  Your brain
  My brain
  Gravity...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:37   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

cheezopete

Wes, do you have a link to that survey?

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:43   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science?

I'll leave the other canards in your post for others to handle. This one, however, is easy.

One doesn't have to believe in "our" version of origins; many other scientific versions are certainly potentially useful for operational science. But your version of origins, lacking a mechanism that operates with natural causes and effects, allows for no testable hypotheses. Any result can be explained, all results are equally probable.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:46   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

He's welcome to submit His findings for peer review whenever He feels like it.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:51   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

Absolutely.



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:51   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,14:46)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

He's welcome to submit His findings for peer review whenever He feels like it.

Zeus, Thor, Allah..?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:53   

Quote
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.


Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:55   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

OK, sounds like you've got an idea of what that log is. I've got a shelf full of books that seem to fit the claim. My personal favorite is the Baghavad Gita but I assume you mean the old testament and the apostles.

On that, non-science point, please tell me something I really want to know:

What makes Jesus better than Krsna? Krsna makes a lot more sense to me. Maybe it's just my translations.

This is a serious question.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:00   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 28 2007,14:51)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

Absolutely.


Except he didn't write it, he "inspired" it.

So the observer isn't the author.

Then it was edited (a lot)

http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm

Please note my Link has "UFO" in it!

And its so badly written people can't agree on the meaning or keep having to "translate it back from original Hebrew" to make it agree with reality!


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:01   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 28 2007,14:53)
Quote
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.


Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

Sort of all frank and no beans?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:03   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,12:15)
But all the evidence I look at, which I interpret through my worldview lens, (All people do have a worldview lens of one sort or another.) is seen as confirming what I know to be true about origins...

My emphasis.

So you did not determine "the truth" about the origin of life by looking at the evidence, but by some other means?

If that's the case, can your opinion of "the truth" be changed by new evidence?  If so, what sort of evidence would do it?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:07   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 28 2007,15:01)
 
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 28 2007,14:53)
 
Quote
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.


Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

Sort of all frank and no beans?

Bart: "You met the big guy? What's he like?"

Homer: "Good teeth, nice smell, class act all the way!"

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:45   

An omnipotent omnisexual omnipresent omniscient being.  It's just that his goober Soooooooooo Big you better call him Father or he will spear you with it.





--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,16:22   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 28 2007,14:51)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

Absolutely.


Arden -

Does this mean... Blammo is God?!

  
  289 replies since Sep. 26 2007,14:03 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (10) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]