Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-08-2002, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sciteach:
Miller-Urey's environment was minus O2 (There must have been more O2 from volcanic emission) and they tampered with it by extracting undesired chemicals that might break them down. Does that prove that some intelligent agent reached into the primordial soup and removed these same chemicals 4 bn years ago?? How scientific is that?

It's very scientific if you understand what they were looking for: biotic compounds. The significance of Miller-Urey experiment is that it was the first to show that biotic compounds like amino acids can result from abiotic chemical reactions. Nothing more-nothing less.

lpetrich · 10-08-2002, 08:18 AM

Let's see:

Sir Francis Bacon was suspected of atheism, and his theological apologetics could have been for covering his rear end (metaphorically, of course!).

Galileo was an early advocate of Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria. By comparison, the Church's leaders had a more fundamentalist view.

Boyle also saw science as an endeavor separate from theology.

Newton wrote vast volumes on interpretations of Daniel and Revelation.

Also, do Copernicus, Galileo, and Pasteur make one want to become a Catholic?

Do Newton, Harvey, Boyle, and Bacon make one want to become an Anglican/Episcopalian?

Does Newton make one want to reject the Trinity and believe that the Son is subordinate to the Father?

Does Linnaeus make one want to become a Lutheran?

RufusAtticus · 10-08-2002, 08:25 AM

Do they all make one want to be a man?

lpetrich · 10-08-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sciteach:
Miller-Urey's environment was minus O2 (There must have been more O2 from volcanic emission) and they tampered with it by extracting undesired chemicals that might break them down. ...

I wonder what creationist site "sciteach" got that "information" from. That is because volcanoes do not emit O2 and because the materials in the Urey-Miller experiment had been sealed in the apparatus for the duration of the experiment.

lpetrich · 10-08-2002, 08:32 AM

I note that the early-modern "founders" of science had built on the rediscovery of the works of various classical Greco-Roman thinkers.

Who were at least nominal Hellenic pagans, worshippers of the deities of Mt. Olympus.

So do Pythagoras, Aristarchus, Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, Ptolemy, Hipparchus, Hippocrates, Galen, Archimedes, etc. make one want to convert to Hellenic paganism?

If you want evidence, simply read the original Hippocratic Oath. It has Hellenic paganism in it. So does that mean that one must be a Hellenic pagan if one wants to be a good doctor?

KC · 10-08-2002, 09:29 AM

If a professor cannot in good conscience recommend a student, then he should not. Dr Dini clearly stated what the criteria are to get a recommendation from him, so nobody has a cause for complaint, in my opinion.

That someone did find cause for complaint only highlights the sadly growing sense of entitlement for not only unearned recommendations, but even grades. If students can get their parents to pressure a school board to order a teacher to not fail them for plagiarizing an assignment, I suppose its not surprising that students can expect a professor to recommend them regardless of his own conscience.

I long for the days where teachers, like my English Comp instructor in high school, felt they could write this on a students paper: "No Grade-- Not Up To Fail Standards", without a friggin lawyer and a journalist making news out of it.

Cheers,

KC

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]

scombrid · 10-08-2002, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirenSpeak:


His analogy is flawed because it has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one seriously disputes "galaxies" for for crying out loud. It doesnt relate to this discussion.

No one seriously disputes evolution either, not scientifically anyway.

Albion · 10-08-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Oh come on now, Albion. Since when has the evolutionists assured statement about the appearance of the first bacterial cell relied on the Scientific Method!!!
Have experiments been done? Was anyone there when it happened? What a joke!!!

You're really beginning to frighten me. Here you are, all set to go and teach biology to a bunch of kids, and rather than try and find out anything about it yourself, you're amusing yourself by throwing creationist propaganda around this board. Don't you think that,for the sake of the children you'll be teaching, your time might be better spent actually finding out a few things about what you'll be teaching? Or does that really not matter to you as much as the opportunity to be ignorant at a bunch of "evolutionists"?

What sort of "assured statement" have people made about the appearance of the first bacterial cell? The stuff I've read stresses the tentativeness of conclusions that are drawn on this sort of subject. Nevertheless, experiments have been performed - there's a whole lot of stuff out there on lipid bilayers, on protocells, on membrane formation, and on a lot of chemical aspects of abiogenesis.

No, of course nobody was there billions of years ago. Obviously. SO WHAT? Unless you have some scientific reason to believe that the laws of nature were different back then (which is a major factor in the creationist argument), then the fact that nobody was there is irrelevant. Things can be tested and replicated and investigated now, and they still apply because the basic conditions in the universe are the same now as they were then. Same universe, same laws of nature.

Do those poor children a favour and go and read some science as well as creationist rubbish. Please.

Splat · 10-08-2002, 12:02 PM

From<a href="http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm" target="_blank">Dini's web site</a>:

Quote:

If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?

'nuf said. I couldn't agree more.

sciteach · 10-08-2002, 12:17 PM

Actually Albion, the first thing I will teach them is CREATIONISM as an alternative THEORY. Soemthing that should be in the books all along. Wanna coteach?

10-08-2002, 09:29 AM	#76
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	If a professor cannot in good conscience recommend a student, then he should not. Dr Dini clearly stated what the criteria are to get a recommendation from him, so nobody has a cause for complaint, in my opinion. That someone did find cause for complaint only highlights the sadly growing sense of entitlement for not only unearned recommendations, but even grades. If students can get their parents to pressure a school board to order a teacher to not fail them for plagiarizing an assignment, I suppose its not surprising that students can expect a professor to recommend them regardless of his own conscience. I long for the days where teachers, like my English Comp instructor in high school, felt they could write this on a students paper: "No Grade-- Not Up To Fail Standards", without a friggin lawyer and a journalist making news out of it. Cheers, KC [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 08:18 AM	#72
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Let's see: Sir Francis Bacon was suspected of atheism, and his theological apologetics could have been for covering his rear end (metaphorically, of course!). Galileo was an early advocate of Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria. By comparison, the Church's leaders had a more fundamentalist view. Boyle also saw science as an endeavor separate from theology. Newton wrote vast volumes on interpretations of Daniel and Revelation. Also, do Copernicus, Galileo, and Pasteur make one want to become a Catholic? Do Newton, Harvey, Boyle, and Bacon make one want to become an Anglican/Episcopalian? Does Newton make one want to reject the Trinity and believe that the Son is subordinate to the Father? Does Linnaeus make one want to become a Lutheran?

10-08-2002, 08:25 AM	#73
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Do they all make one want to be a man?

10-08-2002, 08:32 AM	#75
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I note that the early-modern "founders" of science had built on the rediscovery of the works of various classical Greco-Roman thinkers. Who were at least nominal Hellenic pagans, worshippers of the deities of Mt. Olympus. So do Pythagoras, Aristarchus, Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, Ptolemy, Hipparchus, Hippocrates, Galen, Archimedes, etc. make one want to convert to Hellenic paganism? If you want evidence, simply read the original Hippocratic Oath. It has Hellenic paganism in it. So does that mean that one must be a Hellenic pagan if one wants to be a good doctor?

10-08-2002, 12:17 PM	#80
sciteach Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 36	Actually Albion, the first thing I will teach them is CREATIONISM as an alternative THEORY. Soemthing that should be in the books all along. Wanna coteach?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.