From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 22:15:35 EST
>>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!
>From: "Michael Roberts" <email@example.com>
>To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
>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
>= 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.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "bivalve" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:29 PM
>Subject: test questions-old topic
> > Having just finished preparing talks for upcoming meetings, I am
>up on a few old topics.
> > >Would anyone on this list use these questions on any of your tests?
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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,
>does not seem as though the questioner intends for students to consider
> > 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
> > email@example.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
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 22:15:59 EST