Dr Rick

Right

<strong> Wrong, heresy is a challenge to dogma.

<strong> Right

<strong> non sequitor, and a direct contradiction of your last statement

<strong> Right

<strong> irrelevant question, but yes

<strong> Two bifurcation fallacies

<strong> introducing a false/extended analogy followed by a...

<strong> ...fallacy of begging the question, and once again, a contradiction of a prior assertion: <strong> a false statement

<strong> irrelevant inquiry

<strong> Only in a framework external to the methods in which the dogma was formed. Questioning of Christian dogma can not occur within the belief system of Christianity.

<strong> wrong; a scientific principle can be repeatedly questioned and the answer can still remain the same, but that does not make it dogma.

<strong> non sequitor

<strong> fallacy of extended analogy

<strong> Fallacies of equivocation, bifurcation and non sequitor

<strong> non sequitor; morality is not a science.

<strong> no

<strong> equivocation and appeal to authority fallacies

<strong> nonsequitor

<strong> fallacy of ignoratio elenchi

<strong> Fallacies of argumentum ad verecundiam, amphiboly, and bifurcation.

You have not presented a rational argument.

Rick

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

dk

Hi Rick,
I can’t possibly respond properly because you 1) sliced and diced my comments to substitute context with pretext, 2) your responses are so brief they themselves lack context. But please permit me to correct the first few lines.
[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ps418

Another load of clueless claptrap.

First, you need to grasp that there is a difference between geology and evolution.

Second, the Lake in question is called Spirit, not 'Ghost.'

Third, no geologist to my knowledge has ever claimed that either petrifaction (replacement of or infilling plant cells with silica) or the deposition of layered sediments require millions of years to occur. This is nothing but a garden-vcariety creationist strawman -- claim that 'evolutionists' think process X takes millions of years (with no evidence), then show that X can happen quickly, then conclude that 'evolutionists' are all wrong.

Fourth, you must not know what petrifaction is, because no evidence has been presented by Coffin, Austin, or other creationist writers that the trees on thr bottom of Spitit Lake are being silicified. Hence, your assertion that the Mt St Helens eruption formed a petrified forest on the bottom of Spirit Lake is incorrect. On the other hand, thin-section photos of genuine fossil forests buried by prior eruptions of St Helens over the past several centuries show that they are definitely being 'petrified' (Karowe, A. and T. Jefferson, 1987. Burial of trees by eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, Washington: implications for the interpretation of fossil forests. Geology Magazine 124:191-204).

Fifth, all that Spirit Lake shows is that some trees can sink with an erect orientation, provided they are bottom-heavy. If you think that Spirit Lake shows how fossil forests can be produced by a flood, then think again.
None of the features indicative of autochthonous (in-place) preservation, such as root and rootlet orientation, fossil soils with differentiated horizons, centroclinal cross-strata or tidal rhythmites around erect trees, will be duplicated at Spirit Lake.

Patrick

dk

Patrick I apoligize, and didn't mean to send you off the edge into the geological record, my point is simply no matter what they find its evolution. Hey, if the flip/flop theory based on some new evidence becomes credible, its evoluton. If they find a mars rock, its evolution. How can it possibly be anything else?

Obviously Mt. St. Helen doesn't prove anything about evolution, because it happened in 1980. The real question is what does evolution tell us about the Mt. St. Helen eruption. The answer is not much.

The point I'm trying to make is that evolutin isn't a testable hypothesis, because no matter what bla, bla, bla...

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ps418

You're trying to make the point that evolution is not testable, so you regurgipost some irrelevant, factually incorrect YEC nonsense about the geologic implications of Mt St Helens, that has nothing to do with evolution? Nothing in your post supports your point.

Patrick

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

dk

Patrick you've ignored the substance of several lengthily posts to focus on a particular entry about Mt. St. Helen. I've declared my intentions in the context of the entire thread. If they found blue cheese at the center of the earth, it would be an evolutionary fact. To the extent evolution is a science it is absent doctrine. But to the extent evolution is taught as a rudimentary doctrine it is dogma, not science. When kids are taught the doctrine of evolution k0-k8, that's dogma. When a college student is taught the facts of evolution in a geology class, that's science.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

To minimise the confusion that is rife in your threads, I strongly suggest that you define when teaching about evolution is dogma and when it is science. I would suggest that what uni students learn is the same thing as what primary students learn, the only exeption being extra depth and detail. So when is it dogma and when is it science?

Coragyps

Unfortunately true, along with everything else they're taught. The whole system seems to be geared to regurgitation of factoids that are likely to be on the next state "assessment" test, with only rare excursions into teaching how to figure things out. And I guess that does qualify as dogma.

No, that's not even in the syllabus. Evolution is over in the Bio building, down that way...

Albion

Why evolutionary?

That depends on what you mean by doctrine. Are schoolchildren being taught a doctrine of astronomy and germ theory and atomic theory too? When children are in the scientific frame of reference, they're learning things as if they were taken for granted because they're the things that are accepted by scientists.

And would it still be science in biology class?

Mike H

Methinks dk is considering students being taught evolution from K to 8 as dogma since they're not getting the desired philosophical and scientific intricacies and background one would get at the university level that dk would expect and/or hope for in class. While it would be admirable to teach a senior level university course in evolution to eighth graders, is it realistic? I don't think so, but hey, that's just my two cents.

Occasionally you need to make some sacrifices for pedagogy's sake. Speaking as an in the trenches TA this year (being a first year grad student is rather...interesting thus far), some of my students are having serious problems with getting their head around the Bohr model of the atom. A couple are still having issues with that entire c equalling lambda times frequency thing as well. I don't think this is the time or place for myself or the rest of the teaching team to start bringing up a nice rigorous treatment of electrodynamics from Jackson for the classical theory of light or to start breaking out the Dirac equation so we can show them just where electron spin pops out of in the equations.

My two cents, change is probably warranted. Going back to lurkerdom (and studying, freaking quantum exam on Thursday, grr.)