tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8056878452100304675..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Response to Comments: Avoiding the Obvious EvidenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46675698954891867892011-06-23T07:17:19.304-07:002011-06-23T07:17:19.304-07:00Keep lying nat. There's a special place reser...Keep lying nat. There's a special place reserved in heaven for Liar For Jesus.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18583853477197487092011-06-23T06:54:40.536-07:002011-06-23T06:54:40.536-07:00These aren't story books, these are science te...These aren't story books, these are science textbooks. Isn't accuracy important in science? <br /><br />And the Miller Levine book I quoted above talks about "appearance." Thst would seem to indicate that it is the overall appearance that they are talking about, not just specific features. But the drawings distort the overall appearance. And the embryos that don't look alike are ignored.<br /><br />Where exactly am I lying when I say inaacurate drawings are being used?<br /><br />And why isn't the fact that some embyros don't resemble each other irrelevant?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55046813699950679652011-06-22T15:15:16.849-07:002011-06-22T15:15:16.849-07:00natschuster said...
So why couldn't they ...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> So why couldn't they use accurate drawings? </i><br /><br />They did use drawings that were accurate in the features being taught. Keep lying for Jesus there nat. Jesus loves liars.<br /><br /><i>And why not include the facts I mentioned, just for the sake of accuracy.</i><br /><br />Adding extra illustrations would be superfluous to the point being taught.<br /><br /><i>And I don't have any problem with any book on any topic written by any evolutionist. I only have a problem with tedtbooks that have inaccurate pictures.</i><br /><br />The textbooks didn't have inaccurate pictures of what was being taught. Keep lying nat, lying will get you into heaven for sure!<br /><br />If you saw a children's math book that had cartoon pictures of an elephant and a cow with the caption "these animals have four legs" would you scream<br /><br /><b>"THOSE PICTURES AREN'T ACCURATE!! THEY'RE MISLEADING FAKES!! THAT'S NOT A REAL ELEPHANT OR COW!! WHY DIDN'T THEY SHOW A DOG AND A HORSE TOO FOR ACCURACY?? THOSE AUTHORS ARE BEING DISHONEST!! I'M GOING TO SKIP THAT CHAPTER BECAUSE IT'S A FRAUD!!"</b><br /><br />...because that's exactly how stupid you look pushing the tired old creationist lie about Haeckel's originals and the use of similar drawings today.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43000449991446678992011-06-22T13:21:06.202-07:002011-06-22T13:21:06.202-07:00So why couldn't they use accurate drawings? An...So why couldn't they use accurate drawings? And why not include the facts I mentioned, just for the sake of accuracy.<br /><br />And I don't have any problem with any book on any topic written by any evolutionist. I only have a problem with tedtbooks that have inaccurate pictures.<br /><br />When the textbooks used photographs, I didn't skip those pages. And I mentioned the fact that some embryos are similar in my lectures, even when I did skip the pages.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59235479346970054932011-06-22T12:46:50.046-07:002011-06-22T12:46:50.046-07:00natschuster said...
Why were they changed at ...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Why were they changed at all? Why not use accurate drawings?<br /><br /> I'm not complaining about the fact that similarities in fetal development are taught. I'm moaning over a: the fact that inaccurate drawing were used. b: the fact that only embryos that kinda look alike were selected c: the fact that the differences in development are not mentioned.</i><br /><br />The drawings weren't inaccurate in the depiction of the common features being taught.<br /><br />Keep lying for your God nat. You're making HIM so proud!<br /><br /><i>And some of Wells' and Behe's books are on specific topics. Many books written by evoluttionists are also on specific topics. </i><br /><br />Yet you accuse the science authors of dishonesty while you let Wells and Behe slide. <b>Big fat hypocrite.</b><br /><br /><i>And Wells and Behe didn't effect me professionally. The textbooks with the inaccurate pictures did.</i><br /><br />They only affected you 'professionally' in that you dishonestly and illegally decided to screw your students by skipping important course material. You didn't do it because of inaccurate drawings. You did it from your scientific ignorance and religious beliefs.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4585113376759955052011-06-22T12:34:09.186-07:002011-06-22T12:34:09.186-07:00Why were they changed at all? Why not use accurate...Why were they changed at all? Why not use accurate drawings?<br /><br />I'm not complaining about the fact that similarities in fetal development are taught. I'm moaning over a: the fact that inaccurate drawing were used. b: the fact that only embryos that kinda look alike were selected c: the fact that the differences in development are not mentioned.<br /><br />And some of Wells' and Behe's books are on specific topics. Many books written by evoluttionists are also on specific topics. And Wells and Behe didn't effect me professionally. The textbooks with the inaccurate pictures did.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62961743533927076082011-06-22T12:33:48.628-07:002011-06-22T12:33:48.628-07:00natschuster said...
Whether evolution happene...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Whether evolution happened or not is an interpretation of the facts</i><br /><br /><b>Wrong.</b> Evolution - the change in allele frequency of a population over time - is an empirically observed fact.<br /><br />The mechanisms of evolution - genetic changes due to gene duplication, point mutations, frame shifts, etc. as well as sexual recombination and lateral gene transfer - are empirically observed facts.<br /><br />That the same processes and mechanisms worked the same way in the past as they do now is an interpretation based on a huge amount of consilient positive evidence.<br /><br />If you want to falsify ToE you need evidence that the empirically observed processes and mechanisms didn't work in the past and couldn't have produced the results seen. Show us that magic barrier that limits the amount of genetic change possible.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20552294161549405632011-06-22T12:07:45.073-07:002011-06-22T12:07:45.073-07:00natschuster said...
Why do they have to chnag...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Why do they have to chnage the drawings to illustrate the facts being taught?</i><br /><br />Drawing weren't changed to illustrate the facts being taught. Keep lying for your God there nat, I'm sure HE appreciates liars.<br /><br /><i>A fact is something we know directly from empirical observation.</i><br /><br />It's an empirically observable <b>fact</b> that in early development all vertebrate embryos show a common set of features. Why then are you whining when that <b>fact</b> is taught?<br /> <br /><i>I meant to say I read the books by evolutionists as well as the ID proponents.</i><br /><br />Books by ID proponents leave out many more facts about evolution than science books written by biologists and geneticists. Why aren't you bitching about the ID authors' lack of honesty? Sure makes you look like a big fat hypocrite.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36260973142717493912011-06-22T10:53:34.416-07:002011-06-22T10:53:34.416-07:00My post above contains an error. I meant to say I ...My post above contains an error. I meant to say I read the books by evolutionists as well as the ID proponents.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23004340750081785552011-06-22T10:52:34.340-07:002011-06-22T10:52:34.340-07:00Facts are things like how a embryo actually looks,...Facts are things like how a embryo actually looks, how some embryos look similar, and some don't, how embryos don't look alike at some points in development. A fact is something we know directly from empirical observation.<br /><br /><br />Whether evolution happened or not is an interpretation of the facts.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88697746624850429802011-06-22T10:48:44.977-07:002011-06-22T10:48:44.977-07:00Why do they have to chnage the drawings to illustr...Why do they have to chnage the drawings to illustrate the facts being taught?<br /><br />I read the books written by evolutionists, not the ID proponents.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84199162078600004162011-06-22T10:07:36.106-07:002011-06-22T10:07:36.106-07:00natschuster said...
We just have to use accur...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> We just have to use accurate drawings, </i><br /><br />We do use drawings that accurately illustrate the ideas being taught. <br /><br />You forgot to tell me how you determine when something is a fact BTW. And for forgot to tell me what is being taught now that is not a fact.<br /><br /><i>The books that deny the holocaust leave out lots of facts. That the problem I have with the textbooks. If they would include all the facts, then no-one would be able to deny the holocaust.</i><br /><br />Creationist and IDiot books like the ones written by Wells and Behe leave out virtually all known facts about evolution. Why then do you accept their highly biased conclusion? If they would include all the facts, then no-one would be able to deny evolution.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39171550265210791782011-06-22T07:57:10.611-07:002011-06-22T07:57:10.611-07:00We just have to use accurate drawings, include the...We just have to use accurate drawings, include the fact that the embryos don't look alike at some points in development, and mention that some species don't look alike as embryos.<br />If evolution is so well supported, then why not present all the facts? The conclusion is inevitable.<br /><br />The books that deny the holocaust leave out lots of facts. That the problem I have with the textbooks. If they would include all the facts, then no-one would be able to deny the holocaust.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13542669836205310042011-06-22T07:49:36.119-07:002011-06-22T07:49:36.119-07:00natschuster said...
If we teach all the facts...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> If we teach all the facts why don't the textbooks talk about the fac that at somw points in development, the embryos are very different. And why don't they include drawings of species that don't look all that much alike? They leave some facts out.</i><br /><br />If every book included every fact books would be 500' thick and weigh 1,000 tons. That's why we teach enough facts to get the concept across, and interested students can look up the rest.<br /><br /><i>Now, I insist that my students get the facts staight. How they interperate the facts is up to them. </i><br /><br />How do you determine what is fact? What has been taught to students that isn't a fact? So far you've shown that your ignorance and religious based bias makes you an exceptionally poor judge.<br /><br /><i>I let them know that for the standardized tests, they have to interperate the facts as supporting evolution.</i><br /><br />Since that interpretation is by far the most well supported and consilient with the evidence, why shouldn't they interpret it that way?<br /><br />There are books out there that claim the holocaust never happened, and present isolated 'facts' to support the claim. Are you OK with your students accepting that interpretation? Don't you agree we should 'teach the controversy"? and let the students decide?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20895491564063159602011-06-22T07:33:46.465-07:002011-06-22T07:33:46.465-07:00If we teach all the facts why don't the textbo...If we teach all the facts why don't the textbooks talk about the fac that at somw points in development, the embryos are very different. And why don't they include drawings of species that don't look all that much alike? They leave some facts out.<br /><br />Now, I insist that my students get the facts staight. How they interperate the facts is up to them. I let them know that for the standardized tests, they have to interperate the facts as supporting evolution.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80768048558090946492011-06-22T06:18:07.840-07:002011-06-22T06:18:07.840-07:00natschuster said...
Teach all the facts, let the ...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br />Teach all the facts, let the students decide for themselves.</i><br /><br />We do teach all the facts. Not all of them are covered in every book, but they are all available with a minimum of research.<br /><br />The truth is, ID is a religiously based anti-science idea that doesn't have one bit of positive evidence to support it. Having professional liars like Wells create strawman arguments against ToE like the Haeckel's drawings, and having clueless boobs like you repeating the lies doesn't make ID true. That's the facts.<br /><br />As far as letting students decide for themselves, why don't you give every student a 100% on every test? The students have obviously decided for themselves what the answer should be, even if it disagrees with your answer. If Johnny thinks Ringo Starr was the first President of the U.S. or that 2+2=5, who are you to tell him his opinion is wrong?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70881303664397017972011-06-22T05:32:34.643-07:002011-06-22T05:32:34.643-07:00But why change the pictures at all? Why aren't...But why change the pictures at all? Why aren't accurate drawings good enough? And what does the fact that we aren't teaching Haeckle's theory have to do with the fact that facts are not being presented? Teach all the facts, let the students decide for themselves.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14325406337826928972011-06-21T19:10:53.950-07:002011-06-21T19:10:53.950-07:00natschuster said...
So why do they need drawi...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> So why do they need drawings?</i><br /><br />It's common practice to use drawings in biology and medical anatomy books because it's easier to highlight the important features.<br /><br /><i>And why do they need inaccurate drawings? Why aren't accurate drawings good enough? </i><br /><br />The drawings <b>are</b> accurate enough to illustrate the particular features being described.<br /><br /><i>And why not include some of the species that don't look all that much alike? And mention the differences, just for the sake of honesty.</i><br /><br />Still too stupid to get the difference between Haeckel's discredited idea and what is actually taught today I see.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53512005399944565582011-06-21T16:42:25.763-07:002011-06-21T16:42:25.763-07:00So why do they need drawings? And why do they need...So why do they need drawings? And why do they need inaccurate drawings? Why aren't accurate drawings good enough? And why not include some of the species that don't look all that much alike? And mention the differences, just for the sake of honesty.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7684829195652095592011-06-21T13:03:20.335-07:002011-06-21T13:03:20.335-07:00natschuster said...
And what would the eviden...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> And what would the evidence from pictures be, if not that they look alike? </i><br /><br />For the dozenth time, it's that early in embryonic development the vertebrate embryos all exhibit a set of <b>common features</b> like the yolk sac, pharyngeal arches, etc. <b>NOT</b> that the entire embryos look similar.<br /><br /><i>That is why oit was necessary to falsify the pictures, and make them look even more alike.</i><br /><br />Haeckel's originals were made to look more alike <b>in their entirety</b> to support Haeckel's recapitulation idea, an idea that hasn't been taught for almost a century. Similar drawing now that show the early developmental common features <b>aren't</b> used to support Haeckel's idea.<br /><br />I can't believe you are too stupid to not get the difference between the two concepts. My working hypothesis is still that's you're a deliberately lying creationist.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15499482216725505582011-06-21T12:34:33.457-07:002011-06-21T12:34:33.457-07:00The textbooks don't mention that the embryos d...The textbooks don't mention that the embryos do not look alike at different stages in development. And they don't include pictures of embryos that don't look alike. So they are not providing all the evidence. It's been verified that the embryos don't look alike at different points in development. And I'm not talking about ideas, I'm talking about facts.<br /><br />And teen-agers are experts at detecting lies, falsehoods, etc. etc. <br /><br /><br />And what would the evidence from pictures be, if not that they look alike? That is why oit was necessary to falsify the pictures, and make them look even more alike.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7185114096051197602011-06-21T12:14:49.360-07:002011-06-21T12:14:49.360-07:00natschuster said...
Why isn't it revelvan...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> Why isn't it revelvant? Why not give all the information to the students, and let them decide for themselves?</i><br /><br />Students <b>are</b> given all the verified scientific information. What students <b>aren't</b> given in science classes is unverified religious BS like ID-Creationism. Science isn't a restaurant where each student gets to pick and choose which ideas suit their uneducated fancy. Students, especially young ones, often don't have the background knowledge and/or critical thinking skills to tell when they're being fed BS. You're the classic example of a clueless boob who can't tell the religious pipe-dreams he was taught from reality.<br /><br /><i>And the pictures are presented as evidence for evolution, the evidence being the similarities between the embryos.</i><br /><br />Please stop repeating this lie. You've been corrected on it too many times.<br /><br /><i>Present all the evidence, then let the students decide. </i><br /><br />We do. Please stop trying to pretend that the pack of lies pushed by the IDCers is scientific evidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8617198833298307052011-06-21T11:09:33.162-07:002011-06-21T11:09:33.162-07:00Why isn't it revelvant? Why not give all the i...Why isn't it revelvant? Why not give all the information to the students, and let them decide for themselves?<br /><br />And the pictures are presented as evidence for evolution, the evidence being the similarities between the embryos. So why is it irrelevant that there are embryos that don't look alike? Present all the evidence, then let the students decide.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71999580716177414182011-06-21T10:00:02.250-07:002011-06-21T10:00:02.250-07:00natschuster said...
The fact that embryos don...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> The fact that embryos don't look alike at some parts of hteir development is usually ignored by the textbooks. IMHO, leaving that out is being less than honest.</i><br /><br />That's because it's <b>not relevant</b>. Textbooks don't spend a chapter explaining that elephants don't look like rutabagas either.<br /><br /><i>I have the same problem with the fact that the textbooks only use species that kinda look alike as embryos, and ignore the others. This presents only some of the facts, not all. This is also a defect.</i><br /><br />Since you insist on remaining willfully ignorant and deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of the illustrations, that's not surprising. But the 'problem' exists only between your ears, not with the science being taught.<br /><br />Does your religion teach you it's OK to lie in such a manner?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2272327966344273722011-06-21T09:17:03.164-07:002011-06-21T09:17:03.164-07:00The fact that embryos don't look alike at some...The fact that embryos don't look alike at some parts of hteir development is usually ignored by the textbooks. IMHO, leaving that out is being less than honest. I have the same problem with the fact that the textbooks only use species that kinda look alike as embryos, and ignore the others. This presents only some of the facts, not all. This is also a defect.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.com