Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Discussing "Explore Evolution"

Pages: (29) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,12:00    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 05 2008,10:48) Hi Alb, I've stated my interest (above): I'm looking for evidence of specific errors in Explore Evolution.  But this thread has a tendency to wind along in tendentious directions, subject to the vagaries of those posting here. For instance: You originally raised a concern about the description of Paul Chien, which I answered: in the second edition of EE, he will be described as a "biologist."  You then said that the real issue, actually, was relying on Chien as an authority about fossilization potential, whatever his description, and that independent support for his point about pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils was lacking. However, many paleontologists reject the view (which you apparently support) that the lack of fossil evidence for the common ancestors of the "Cambrian Explosion" phyla is due to poor or incomplete sampling.  Chien argues that if fossil embryos could be preserved, in phosphorite beds lying directly below the Cambrian Explosion strata at Chengjiang Paul Two quick points 1) In my original post re Chien, I pointed out his lack of qualifications. That is the problem, and it is, as far as I am concerned, as yet unaddressed. As far as I know, he still has no qualifications (peer-reviewed publications in paleontology), and yet you still cite him in the book. Furthermore, when you say that I espouse a view which many paleontologists "reject", you are again missing the point. I wrote a bald-faced statement espousing a view based on my own ignorance, and pointed out the ludicrousness of using statements from unqualified individuals. So MY position is also irrelevant; I won't argue with you about paleontology, it would be stupid. The point of that exchange was to highlight how you are using unqualified individuals to support your born-again creationist notions in EE. So pay attention to that (lack of credentials for your experts) and quit trying to draw me into a debate about what I know about paleontology. you then wrote       Quote Anyone who points out specific factual errors in EE, however, will have my full attention. 2) Then go back to the earlier pages of this thread and start addressing those. You can start here, where I ask about the names of the folks involved in peer-review and pilot testing of the book. As pointed out in that post, typical biology textbooks thank those folks by name. What are their names, and why are they not named in the front matter of the book? Then you can tackle this one, and the accusation that NONE of the arguments in EE are new, but merely represent long-ago-debunked arguments that arose in the creationist literature. Lenny had some posts that dealt with that, including here, and here, and here. I'll look forward to seeing how you address the error outlined in my linked post above, and the general argument that this book is nothing more than creationism sanitized for constitutional immunity. Thanks -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,12:59    Steve, you are an animal.  This Bud's for you. -------------- 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

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2008,13:02    Yo, Pauly baby!  You should really submit EE for a Hugo Award.  You could be a contendah.   Factual errors?  How about every word in your book? Looky here, Pauly baby, I've got a copy of Phyla in which Valentine discusses the fossil record in chapter 5. Now, what you say in your fictional account of science is that the fossil record is incomplete not because the fossils haven't been found, but because they don't exist, and, furthermore, you say the fossils don't exist because the animals who would have made them didn't exist, either.  (cue mystery music - dum dum DUMMMMMMMMMMB) Do I read that right?  Not because of incomplete sampling. You also say that many paleontologists agree with you which is simply false.  You know it's false, thus it is a deliberate lie.   Yes, Mr. Obvious, the fossil record is incomplete.  So what? On page 174 of Phyla Valentine writes: Quote The fossil record has now yielded a sequence of faunas stretching back over 40 million years before the advent of the trilobites that Darwin knew about, permitting us to infer some of the broad outlines of early metazoan history.  Despite this improved record, the early ancestors of Darwin's trilobites remain unknown. Remain unknown. Not "didn't exist." It's very disturbing that you try to use Valentine to support creationism.  If that were the case then Valentine would be a co-author of EE, not a toxicologist/amateur rock hound. Really, Pauly baby, I don't know why you dog around this discussion forum where teh smartz peoples hang out and try to ply this snake oil of yours.  You should spend your time writing a book on Thetan Biology or something like that.  At least you'd have an audience. And if you get the hint that perhaps I don't have very much respect for you, sorry, my error, any respect for you, then you have at least learned something.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,01:04    It's been over two years since the IDers even tried to publish their fake journal. Since they lost Dover they've written some blog posts, had a 'research symposium' they're too ashamed to let anyone talk about, written a bad crypto-creationist textbook, put out a stupid propaganda movie, and...that's about it. If Ahmanson wakes up at some point he's going to fire the lot of them and get some better fake scientists in there.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,06:08    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,01:04) It's been over two years since the IDers even tried to publish their fake journal. Since they lost Dover they've written some blog posts, had a 'research symposium' they're too ashamed to let anyone talk about, written a bad crypto-creationist textbook, put out a stupid propaganda movie, and...that's about it. If Ahmanson wakes up at some point he's going to fire the lot of them and get some better fake scientists in there. Well, to be fair, they have written TWO crypto-creationist textbooks (Explore Evolution and Dembski and Wells' The Design of Life). Gotta give credit where credit is due! -------------- 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

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,09:21    Hi Alb and others, There's not much more to say on the Chien business.  You think he's not qualified; we do.  In any case, many paleontologists agree that the absence of fossil ancestors for the Cambrian phyla is not due to poor sampling, or to the wrong conditions for fossilization, and we'll be adding significant literature support from them to the next edition. Doc Bill -- you'll notice that I said Valentine thinks the Cambrian phyla share a common ancestor. Thus, by implication, he thinks the transitional taxa existed.  The transitions are not documented, however, in the fossil record.  "Remains unknown" -- the language you cite from chapter 5 -- is entirely consistent with the discussion in EE. Valentine does argue, however, that the missing fossils say something about the mode of evolution at the origin of bodyplans.  That is, he regards their absence not as strictly negative evidence, but as carrying an historical signal:   Quote The paucity of ancestors may well be an important bit of evidence as to the mode of evolution of body plans (Valentine and Erwin 1987).  What sort of evolutionary conditions would be least likely to produce a recognizable fossil record during the origin of a major morphological innovation? J. Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla (Chicago, 2004), p. 188. His answer? Soft-bodied ancestors, which entails that "each phylum that is durably skeletonized evolved its hard parts independently," although "it is not possible to dismiss the sudden appearance of novel bodyplans as resulting entirely from soft-bodied ancestral histories" (p. 188).  Bottom line: "If the Cambrian explosion is not a taphonomic artifact [our point in EE; note the noun], it must reflect some very special circumstances in life's history" (p. 189). BTW, Doc Bill, have you read, or seen, EE? Back to Alb.  The list of reviewers will be added to the second edition.  I'll post the names here later today (don't have the file handy at the moment). I can't make out what you see as an error in EE's discussion of embryology.  Before we get started on that, however, may I know if you consider yourself competent to wade into the details?  I wouldn't want to begin, only to find you bailing out at some point, as you just did with paleontology, because it's not your area of interest or knowledge. About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position. Here's an example to help you get started.  My grandfather, Byron Nelson (1893-1972), included illustrations and discussion in his creationist book After Its Kind, first published in 1927 -- reissued in 1995 by Ron Numbers of the Univ. of Wisconsin, in a Garland Press series -- showing fossil stasis.  Almost fifty years later -- roughly, in the mid-70s -- Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, and other evolutionary theorists began to argue that "[fossil] stasis is data," meaning that the stability through time of fossil forms is evidentially significant. So, can teachers and students talk about fossil stasis?

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,10:59    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21) About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position. Here's an example to help you get started.  My grandfather, Byron Nelson (1893-1972), included illustrations and discussion in his creationist book After Its Kind, first published in 1927 -- reissued in 1995 by Ron Numbers of the Univ. of Wisconsin, in a Garland Press series -- showing fossil stasis.  Almost fifty years later -- roughly, in the mid-70s -- Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, and other evolutionary theorists began to argue that "[fossil] stasis is data," meaning that the stability through time of fossil forms is evidentially significant. So, can teachers and students talk about fossil stasis? Let me give you an equivalent example from science fiction. An episode of Deep Space Nine, in fact. A fleet of enemy ships is on its way to the planet Cardassia (I forget whose) to blow stuff up. The good Captain Sisko wants to warn them, but a treaty prohibits them from sending a message. What does he do? He calls the station's resident tailor (and former Cardassian spy) Garak, to come and alter his uniform. Immediately. In the middle of the briefing where all this is being discussed. That way, he hasn't actually told Garak anything, and yet the spy now is able to warn Cardassia. Find that acceptable? It seems to me you're doing the same. You can't teach creationism, so you're going to piggyback on the science that coincides with it. Of course, we all know this, and have done for a long time (even before the Wedge Document put it in writing), but it's interesting to see you practically admit it. It's even more laughable when your WHOLE BOOK is nothing but 'science that overlaps with creationism'. As Dembski might say, that's so unlikely that it could only have come about by design. In short, you're not fooling us, and we'd like to stop you fooling people less experienced with the scam.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,11:06    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21) Hi Alb and others, There's not much more to say on the Chien business.  You think he's not qualified; we do. Paul I think that most objective observers would think, as I do, that someone with no peer-reviewed publications in a field is unqualified to be quoted as the sole source for a dubious argument in a textbook. I think that most objective observers would understand, as I do, that statements in textbooks are often supported by multiple peer-reviewed publications, from multiple labs, and represent the consensus opinion of the experts in the field. The fact that you are satisfied with substantially less than that in your textbook is quite informative, and speaks volumes about the level of science throughout the book.   Quote I can't make out what you see as an error in EE's discussion of embryology.  Before we get started on that, however, may I know if you consider yourself competent to wade into the details?  I wouldn't want to begin, only to find you bailing out at some point, as you just did with paleontology, because it's not your area of interest or knowledge. Someone who didn't show up here for seven months, except to lurk, has no business accusing someone else of "bailing out". In addition, as noted before, I specifically noted in that message that I was merely as qualified as Chien in this area, i.e., completely unqualified. Unlike Chien, I NEVER claimed to be an expert. As for being unable to "make out" my issue with your embryological issues, I don't think it takes specific expertise in embryology, it just takes honesty. Here's the link to my post. In a nutshell, your book drags up the strawman of Haeckel's embryos, and states "This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks." I point out that this statement is quantitatively untrue; only three of the 21 college biology textbooks I had on hand even mentioned Haeckel, and none of them propagated his error. Additional posts in that sequence, which you ignored, expounded on the fact that modern biology textbooks (including the two that you cite in EE), contrary to the statement in your book, do not propagate the error. No embryology necessary here. You just need to be able to count, and read with comprehension.   Quote About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position. One problem with that perspective is that the arguments have been scientifically debunked, for the most part. A second problem with that perspective is that the arguments ignore modern scientific advances; you are essentially lying by omission. In a book that is allegedly dedicated to "inquiry-based" learning, the omission of relevant factual evidence (i.e. the real number of modern biology textbooks that err re Haeckel) that leads to a different answer than you want, is genuinely dishonest. If creationists have generated new DATA, let's see it. If they haven't, then relying on arguments that were debunked long ago is shameful. Can you quote even ONE argument in EE that is not derived from (or in most cases, identical to) ancient creationist canards? -------------- 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

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,12:09    Oh, and by the way, Paul, while we are on the topic of "bailing out", can you tell us how many more interglacial periods will elapse before the "debate" page for EE will be operational? Thanks in advance -------------- 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

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,13:12    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21) About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position. Seems that I recall, way back in the beginning of this thread, that you were asked (by Lenny, I think) if there would be anything new and exciting in this book, or if it would just be the same moldy creationist canards.  You said it wouldn't be the same moldy creationist canards.  Then lots of examples were provided, which clearly showed that it EE is indeed moldy.  Now you seem to be conceding that the creationist arguments are indeed present, but that they "overlap" (whatever that means) with actual science. So: were you being dishonest in the beginning, or are you actually so stupid that you didn't realize that your book was full of creationist junk? -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,17:23    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21) The list of reviewers will be added to the second edition.  I'll post the names here later today (don't have the file handy at the moment). and then     Quote Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   Mar. 06 2008,16:52 and then [chirp chirp] ETA Quote Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   Mar. 06 2008,19:33 -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,20:23    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 06 2008,14:12) So: were you being dishonest in the beginning, or are you actually so stupid that you didn't realize that your book was full of creationist junk? It's hard to understand what Paul's doing here. To begin with, he knows his book is just creationist junk with terms like 'creationism' deleted, because it was his finger on the delete key. Further, we got some copies and showed explicitly on this thread that it's just old creationist junk, so everybody watching knows it too. All this ID tactic seems to be doing is making creationists behave dishonestly. It certainly isn't getting any science done. I remain optimistic that whoever's signing the checks at the Discovery Institute will realize he's throwing good money after bad. Wouldn't you hate to be the guy who gives the funders the progress reports these days?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,20:27    Several PT/AtBC people held out hope that Paul was one of the better IDers, honestly trying to turn ID into a scientific enterprise. This 'textbook' has changed some minds. It's just dishonest.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,20:44    Here's the list of reviewers for EE (this file was on an old computer; apologies for the delay in posting).  This information will be included in the second edition; it was omitted from the first because of a production error. Board of Reviewers, Explore Evolution E.C. Ashby, Ph.D. Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus School of Chemistry & Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia Daniel Ely, Ph.D. Professor of Biology University of Akron Akron, Ohio Bruce Evans, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Huntington University Huntington, Indiana W. Michael Gray Professor and Chair Department of Biology Bob Jones University David Jones, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry Grove City College Grove City, Pennsylvania Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University San Francisco, California Scott Kinnes, Ph.D. Professor Departments of Biology & Chemistry Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD., D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc. R.C.V.S. Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol United Kingdom Pattle Pun, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois John Silvius, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Cedarville University Cedarville, Ohio Robert Waltzer, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College Jackson, Mississippi William Wise, MSEd Science Department Head & Biology Instructor Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,20:50    Steve and Jim -- same question I asked Doc Bill: Have you actually seen, or read, Explore Evolution? If not, I'll be happy to send you review copies, gratis.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,20:56    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,21:50) Steve and Jim -- same question I asked Doc Bill: Have you actually seen, or read, Explore Evolution? If not, I'll be happy to send you review copies, gratis. Are you kidding me? Go back and read this thread. We'll wait.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:07    As anybody can see on about page 9 of this thread, we got a few copies around early August, and Paul suddenly had somewhere to be for the next 6 months.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:09    Actually, Jim -- I could deliver your copy of EE personally.  I'll be lecturing (with Angus Menuge) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, on April 1, 2008.  Kenosha isn't that far away... Alb, if you have a copy of Donald Prothero's new textbook from Columbia Univ. Press, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007), take a look at p. 110.  I'll post more about the use of Haeckel's embryos in biology textbooks tomorrow.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:13    Steve, Have you personally read the book?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:16    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,21:44) Here's the list of reviewers for EE (this file was on an old computer; apologies for the delay in posting).  This information will be included in the second edition; it was omitted from the first because of a production error. Board of Reviewers, Explore Evolution E.C. Ashby, Ph.D. Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus School of Chemistry & Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia Daniel Ely, Ph.D. Professor of Biology University of Akron Akron, Ohio Bruce Evans, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Huntington University Huntington, Indiana W. Michael Gray Professor and Chair Department of Biology Bob Jones University David Jones, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry Grove City College Grove City, Pennsylvania Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University San Francisco, California Scott Kinnes, Ph.D. Professor Departments of Biology & Chemistry Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD., D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc. R.C.V.S. Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol United Kingdom Pattle Pun, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois John Silvius, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Cedarville University Cedarville, Ohio Robert Waltzer, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College Jackson, Mississippi William Wise, MSEd Science Department Head & Biology Instructor Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School Broken Arrow, Oklahoma How many of those reviewers signed the "Dissent from Darwin" list? Let me bold them for you. E.C. Ashby, Ph.D. Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus School of Chemistry & Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia Daniel Ely, Ph.D. Professor of Biology University of Akron Akron, Ohio Bruce Evans, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Huntington University Huntington, Indiana W. Michael Gray Professor and Chair Department of Biology Bob Jones University David Jones, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry Grove City College Grove City, Pennsylvania Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University San Francisco, California Scott Kinnes, Ph.D. Professor Departments of Biology & Chemistry Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California Alan H. Linton   M.Sc., PhD., D.Sc., F.R.C.Path., Hon. Assoc. R.C.V.S. Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol United Kingdom Pattle Pun, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois John Silvius, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Cedarville University Cedarville, Ohio Robert Waltzer, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Belhaven College Jackson, Mississippi William Wise, MSEd Science Department Head & Biology Instructor Broken Arrow South Intermediate High School Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:19    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,22:13) Steve, Have you personally read the book? Read the thread. Yes I've read the book. And so has Lenny. And Gary. And Alba. And several others here. Showing that it was nothing but creationist junk was roughly pages 9-13 of this thread. edit: more like pages 9 through 11. Edited by stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:28

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:27    Of the twelve reviewers, the only two who didn't "Dissent" from evolution are a high school teacher and a guy from Bob Jones University. I don't even have anything to say about that. It speaks for itself.

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:37    Steve, I scrolled through the thread, and I can't find any discussion of the actual contents of EE from you.  Lots of stuff from Lenny, Alb, and others. But nothing from you.  Can you point me to the questions you raised, based on your own reading of EE?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:46    Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,20:25) That creationist textbook which is increasingly pissing me off: well where have I seen that kind of crap before? Oh yeah   Quote Evolution and Creation Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (July 2005) Why is it important to study EVOLUTION (Darwinism)? •         Darwinism Poisons Morals •         Darwinism Poisons Evangelism •         Darwinism Poisons Truth (Not AJTB) [snip] Principle of Irreducible Complexity applied to … •         Bird Lungs and Wings from Reptiles? and speaking of birds, how about our jailbird friend Kent Hovind?   Quote Hovind: "Reptiles have a sack-type lung, and they breathe in and out. Birds have a tubular-type lung, and they breathe through their lungs, not in and out of their lungs." http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/F.html http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek_inside_1.pdf http://www.ontruth.com/creationevolutionnotes.htm recognize that diagram Paul?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:48    There's some discussion of the contents. That was from EE parts posted on the internet before I got my copy. By the time I got mine, I'd already helped get one to Lenny, so I let him do the bulk of showing where your dishonest creationist textbook came from. Edited by stevestory on Mar. 06 2008,22:49

Paul Nelson Posts: 43 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,21:58    So you'd stand by Lenny's specific critiques -- i.e., endorse them as representing your own position, since you've read the book and agree with Lenny's assessment of the contents? I ask because I'll be referring to particular discussions in EE over the next few days, and am interested in your view, given that Lenny is no longer participating in the thread.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:02    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2008,21:27) Of the twelve reviewers, the only two who didn't "Dissent" from evolution are a high school teacher and a guy from Bob Jones University. I don't even have anything to say about that. It speaks for itself. I think it's very nice that the EE authors reached out to the Bob Jones University faculty. Plenty of life sciences heavyweights there. Besides, didn't Lou go there briefly?   (*Lou: apologies if it was really Liberty. I can't remember.) -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:03    Since you disappeared for the better part of 6 months, and I didn't, I think it's your turn to answer questions. Why don't you answer some of the outstanding questions already here. Such as "Is there a single argument in your book which can't be traced back to creationists?"

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:05    Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,19:13) Steve, Have you personally read the book? As an educator with over 37 years experience (second grade through post doctoral students) I would love to review EE. I'll pay shipping. Gary Hurd 33902 Silver Lantern Dana Point, Ca 92629 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2008,22:09    I actually thought I sent my copy to you Gary. I'll get you a copy in 2-3 days.

Pages: (29) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard