Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
click here to read article
Don't thank me, thank longshadow for all of the hard work of finding it. I just posted the reference. :-)
"He's dead, Jim!"
Very kind of you to give attribution, something which your interlocutor seems unable, or unwilling to do.
Not so much fun since ALS got busted for his phony Darwin Quotes.
"Rube" Hicks -- b. Nov 28, 2004, d. Dec 3, 2004 ...
WHETHER HE EVER ADMITS IT OR NOT!
Dec 4, 2004. (Not as expensive as messing up a real tombstone, anyway.)
I contend that I never read that document prior to it being posted here today. Actually I personally know the source of the information in question. The document referenced here is borrowed from that.
Nevertheless, I never called any of it my own which is a requirement for plagiarizing, and I believe that ThinkPlease was looking for any excuse to avoid having to debate the topic because ThinkPlease is intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument.
I am also not surprised to see that all the other evolutionists in this thread are totally incapable of dealing with issues and must resort to pointless side shows, lies, insults and other foolishness. You have learned well from your masters.
I bet it must really bother you that a Creationist has you folks reduced to scrambling for anything to silence the opposition. Typical.
I just feel the love from you God haters... :)
Since you have your name signed to the post, I can only assume that you called it your own. No matter what you think, since you have not actually dealt with any of my arguments since last night, the latter part of your statement isn't very believeable.
I gues that depends on the meaning of "called". Always good to see the clinton defence in action.
You cut and pasted it without reading it? Why would you do that?
Actually I personally know the source of the information in question.
If true, this helps you how?
The document referenced here is borrowed from that.
Without attribution. Which was then falsely denied. Now you seem to be backpedaling.
Am I the only one here whose Irony Meter just blew up after reading the above statement?
He's accusing "ThinkPlease" of being "intellectually incapable of forming a cogent argument" while HE's the guy who cribbed HIS argument from someone else, WITHOUT GIVING ATTRIBUTION for it.
Now THAT sounds suspiciously like someone who is "incapable of forming make a cogent argument" of their own.
But he only SAID he didn't READ it first. So prove he did, Mr. Smartypants!
Keep beating the drum of "plagiarizing". It is pointless, it isn't true, it doesn't address the issue.. hmmm seems like the classical evolutionist debate technique.
To me it is not that you copy from some creationist crapsite. That has always been obvious. Your whole thought pattern is drenched with that horrible cult.
What is so sad, is that you use ruthless debate tactics against science, tactics that if any other Christian would approach them, you roundly criticize and squeal like a stuck pig when they do.
How do you like some of your own medicine?
God doesn't need a moronic defense for His Word. Read the Bible for what it really says, or you will start to slip into darkness of the soul that is irreparable.
It is impossible that everything you have said is true. Your denials and admissions are incompatible. You have denied reading the statements and admitted borrowing them.
Sometimes known as the "Wyle E. Coyote" Syndrome..... in which the cartoon character doesn't actually fall into the the bottom of the canyon unless they look down.
Yeah. I think that's where they're getting their approach to these debates.
On further review, I think Roadie's main trick is to go from 60 to 0 in 0 seconds right on the very, very edge of the precipice. He probably never gets out on thin air. Wile E. has a problem stopping that fast, etc.
Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, failure to indicate the source with quotation marks or footnotes where appropriate if any of the following are reproduced in the work submitted by a student:
- A phrase, written or musical.
- A graphic element.
- A proof.
- Specific language.
- An idea derived from the work, published or unpublished, of another person.
The reader will note that a specific claim of "ownership" of material that is in fact attributable to another is NOT necessary for plagiarism to have taken place. The mere submission of the material in the absence of the appropriate attribution is sufficient.
No doubt someone will now show up to accuse PH of claiming the cartoon as his own......
.... of course, to do so, one would have to ignore the artist's SIGNATURE on the cartoon itself, thus denoting attribution.
That's a tough definition. I don't think many of us credit our non-original ideas. I don't even remember where I first read most of the stuff I know.
Am I mistaken, or has the exact post in question been made before on FR? I have a distinct visual memory of a post made a year or so ago that was several paragraphs long, mostly a quotation, but had an odd sentence or two added in.
Images are something of a sore point on the internet. Particularly when altered. Life will suck when the image police get control of the internet.
I was already searching for Wile E. Coyote pics, so the timing was fortuitous. I couldn't find one with him running on air without realizing it.
An excellent question. It looked strangely familiar to me, which is why I initiated a Google search which led to the discovery of the referenced URL.
As far as having been used on FR before, I can't be sure; if it had, it should show up in a google search. It didn't on the phrase that I searched last night, but it might on others.
Maybe the post is not identical to one used before, but the technique is identical. Take half a dozen paragraphs from an outside source, toss in a few phrases of expansion and comentary, and suddenly it's yours. I wonder if this works on college essays when they are checked by internet robots.
Copyright violation is definitely different from plagerism. Changing the wording gets you off the copyright hook, but not the plagerism hook. Standards are a little different in editorial writing; stealing ideas is SOP. Academics are a bit twitchier.
It might slip by if you're checking for the whole sentence, but maybe not if it's specific phrases you're searching for. In any event, when it's discovered, the intent to steal by changing a word here and there becomes obvious. At least if you copy word-for-word, you can always claim that you innocently "forgot" the footnote. But this doesn't really save anyone.
Yet another source for some of the text has been located! Behold:
At least two of the five arguments appear in this source, dated 1988, with minor changes in phrasing.
It is unclear who is copying from whom, but it sure looks like there's lots of unattributed ideas being cribbed in the anti-Evolutionary/anti-Big Bang landscape.
Plagiarism, like copyright law, is generally exposed by the "parallel text" method used on this thread. It shades rather smoothly into other intellectual property areas, as you point out, but it's about words.
When I say what I think, I'm not claiming I invented all that. No one can keep a name tag on every idea.
This has proven to be a very reliable method for determining stellar distances, and its accuracy makes it a reliable way to check the accuracy of observations and methods used in astronomy and other areas of physics. We long ago established (through Earthbound expirements) the speed of light, at about 300,000 km per second. This is a constant (like those discovered by Newton, Planck and Hubble) that we us to explain a 13.7 billion year old universe, the process of radioactive decay that gives us approx. ages of fossils, rocks and the Earth and most other phenomena treated by science. These very same constants show up in equations behind every tech. advancement of our time (like superconductors, mircroprocessors and cellphones). The value of the scientific process can be measured not only by the advancement of theory, but by its applications in every industry and endeavor in the world.
Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot challenge theories like evolution or the big bang because they cannot use the language of mathematics to engage the science. Alternative theories must explain the shortcomings of standing theories (beyond inspiring spirited debates about religion, morality and politics). This failure doesn't reflect on the character or intelligence of science's detractors, it reflects the complex and seemingly contradictory nature of the human experience.
I don't discourage critiques of science from any quarter, but it is my experience that proponents of ID and Creationism cannot (or will not) acknowledge the differences between the study of science and the experience of faith. Revelation of faith is subjective, it depends upon the personal experience of an individual, that cannot be quantified or tested by science. The same holds for the power of prayer in one's life.
Scientists may explain faith and prayer as hallucinations caused by chemical triggers in the brain, or even mental illness. They may be atheists who think religious people are nuts and who deny an afterlife or miracles. They be born-again Christians who believe that what is truly real in life is their relationship with Christ. Whatever their subjective beliefs, they must remain true to the objectivity of the scientific process if they value their life's work.
The value of science and its successful applications in technology is the reason that doctors study evolutionary biology when they study anatomy and astronomy grad students work with published PhDs to make their own meaningful impact on our understanding of the universe. I'm not ashamed that I read Scientific American and visit academic websites (like Cambridge U) to learn about inflationary cosmology. I have read essays on Creationism and grew up with some fundamentalist Sunday school teachers who preached disdain for science and especially evolution in a very paranoid tone. My biology teacher in high school discussed Creationism, and encouraged classroom debate, but he understood the differences in how we subjectively experience faith and how we objectivly apply science to study our universe.
I never discuss my faith when defending evolution as a theory and science as a fruitful process because I don't view religion and science as opposite worldviews in perpetual contradiction. As Martin L. King stated, "science and religion are not enemies, science tells us about our universe on the outside, religion tells us about our souls on the inside." Science is no more a religion, than Creationism or ID viable science. So I'll leave it at that.
I get a kick out people who argue for Creationism in these forums, and after a round or two of posts, cast their opponents in political stereotypes, and allege agendas and paranoia, so forth. So I'm not even going to answer false assumptions about my politcal views with an intelligent rebutle.
I'm no expert on natural selection and viruses, or the fossilization of prehistoric fish or the intricate processes of stellar fussion and nucleosynthesis. I'm content to accept science as a magnificent tool for undertanding our universe and impoving our lives here on Earth. And I realize that advances in genetics do not lead to a Hitlerian future in which the government decides whose genes are worth reproducing and whose should be extinguished. Science is a tool and it's up to man to decide how it is applied. People who hold up science as a religion (whoever these people are) are not much different than those who put forth Creationism and ID as science, in that they insult the all of us who put the roles of religion and science in their lives in proper perspective.
There's a bit of a gray area in between ideas that need citations and background knowledge that "everyone knows". As a general rule, the more unique, novel, or specific the idea is, the more likely it is to require citation if it's not your own original thought.
You can have fun tracking misspellings around. Somebody quote-mined a Lubenow book (creationist, anyway) and misspelled "Turkana" as "Tukana."
Of course, the list grows a little more every time I post about it.
Well, hell - there really isn't any such thing as an original creationist thought, is there?
When the Christians can explain where God comes from, then maybe we can pay attention to them. Until then, it's obvious that there can't be a god.
Hey, I'm just employing the same logical fallacy that you did...
Scientific laws and the order of the universe exist. Just because things can't be scientifically verified yet by mathematics does not mean they are not true.
"Evolution is such a powerful theory that fear motivates opinion and actions against it that are generally not directed against other sciences."
A lot of it is their fear of being shunned by their friends in the same church (cult). If they admit that science is true, they risk isolating themselves. I have been in churches where belief in evolution makes you suspect as to your faith.
This is the type of coercion that easily reveals what is Christian and what is not.
OJ could not have murdered Nicole. The prosecutor didn't go back to The Beginning.
Get real. Why did you leave out Jews? That's where Christians got the idea.
I'm beginning to wonder....
200, another prime number!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.