From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 07:16:42 EST
It's probably another red herring. If not it will be the first real
argument, but the chances of that are minimal on the basis ofprevious
performance.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson" <burgythree@hotmail.com>
To: <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: test questions-old topic
> >>Can anyone give me one creationist argument which doesnt turn out to be
> >>false or a semantic game when it is scrutinised?
>
> >>
>
> I read one in ICR's ACTS & FACTS last month on their RATE project.
> Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I discarded it. Something to do with
> helium trapped in rock formations providing evedence of a young earth.
>
> Well -- it was new to me!
>
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> >To: <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>, <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Subject: Re: test questions-old topic
> >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:17:01 -0000
> >
> >Nebraska man is a typical creationist porkie (cockney rhyming slang pork
> >pie
> >= lie) or actually only half a pork pie as it is often true in what it
says
> >and dishonest what it leaves out. David is absolutely correct over
Osborn.
> >
> >Can anyone give me one creationist argument which doesnt turn out to be
> >false or a semantic game when it is scrutinised?
> >
> >Pray for us Brits Ken Ham is on tour this month and I dont know whether
> >anyone will turn him into a pork pie.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
> >To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:29 PM
> >Subject: test questions-old topic
> >
> >
> > > Having just finished preparing talks for upcoming meetings, I am
> >catching
> >up on a few old topics.
> > >
> > > >Would anyone on this list use these questions on any of your tests?
> >Why?
> >Why not? <
> > >
> > > The first question (questioning Dawkin's reasoning) looked reasonably
> >good, but the rest generally had significant problems of various sorts.
> > >
> > > Some problems are more pragmatic. Many of the questions are talking
> >about
> >a rather detailed point, and seem inappropriate for any test except an
open
> >book, take home exam. Also, the wording could often be improved for test
> >purposes. Some questions request only yes or no, and would be improved
by
> >a
> >request for supporting evidence. Some questions can be interpreted in
more
> >than one way and need rewording to be unambiguous. For example, "Are
> >scientists able to determine..." is impossible to answer without
> >omniscience
> >regarding all future scientific discoveries. "Have scientists
> >explained...?" would be better.
> > >
> > > Other problems have to do with the content. Many questions
incorporate
> >inaccurate information or misrepresentations. For example, "26. Nebraska
> >Man ... the tooth came from a pig. A report in Nature (August 17, 1995)
> >states that analysis of an incomplete shin bone from a creature dubbed
> >Australopithecus anamensis suggests it walked upright "between 3.9 and
4.2
> >million years ago." How should we treat discoveries which have not yet
> >faced
> >the rigors of scientific validation?"
> > >
> > > This question has several inaccuracies. Nebraska man was based on a
> >peccary tooth, not a pig tooth. It was never widely accepted among
> >paleontologists. However, humans, peccaries, and pigs all have fairly
> >similar teeth, being omnivores. Thus, the initial guess was not
> >unreasonable; the problem was that Osborne overplayed his initial guess.
> >Likewise, the interpretation of a shin bone as coming from an upright
> >walker
> >is very well-validated. Whether it came from something that properly
> >belongs in Australopithecus or another genus is less certain.
> > >
> > > It would be a good point to call into question the many
antievolutionary
> >claims that lack scientific validation and to call attention to the
> >extensive scientific validation for evolution and an old earth. However,
> >it
> >does not seem as though the questioner intends for students to consider
> >that
> >issue.
> > >
> > > Other questions, such as the questions about Archaeopteryx, while not
> >necessarily unsuitable in themselves, lend themselves to popular
> >antievolutionary misuses (in that case, promoting semantic confusion
> >regarding transitional forms).
> > >
> > > Dr. David Campbell
> > > Old Seashells
> > > University of Alabama
> > > Biodiversity & Systematics
> > > Dept. Biological Sciences
> > > Box 870345
> > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> > > bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
> > >
> > > That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
> >Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
> >Droitgate Spa
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 07:17:17 EST