Dover and the evolution of the anti-evolution movement 4of6

The Dover Trial and the Evolution of the Anti- Evolution Movement. Presented by Ed Brayton, co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and freelance writer for Skeptic magazine, The Bard and Reports of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and contributor to The Panda's Thumb, a premiere advocacy website for evolution, science and nature. The central irony seen in the anti- evolution agenda is that while denying evolution, they make use of an evolutionary strategy to strive for successful propagation of their meme in the world. As the environment changes, they adapt and morph their approach to spread their creationist beliefs, at the expense of the competition: biological science. The Dover school district case was, therefore, a continuation in a long process that has involved four basic phases so far. Mr. Brayton outlined these for us.

http://www.cfimichigan.org

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• dover
• brayton

[djarm67]

"No one has ever said for sure how those halos have formed."

Gentry concluded that the halos were caused by Polonium decay. However, don't the above points refute his conclusions?

The absence of a clear understanding of the mechanism of the origin of these specific halos via repeatable experimentation, does not automatically support his conclusion that it was Polonium decay.

[djarm67]

3. All of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows.

4. Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial

[djarm67]

1. The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike.

2. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments.

[Hooya2]

Rofl you can't answer the actual argument--we both know you can't--but I'm going to ask you for an answer again anyway.

Radon provides an alternative explanation for the halos. Geological evidence supports the radon theory. Papers showing this have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Explain to me why I should accept the polonium halo argument over the radon halo argument. Don't give me quote-mines; give me a summary of an actual argument from a peer-reviewed paper.

[mejc2]

Actually I am a class act.

Hooya you cited a paper I read it and it supported what I was saying and you can't stand it. turthfully it's really kinda funny.

You're too easy hooya

[Hooya2]

And you're still ignoring the actual argument! You really are a class act mej lol.

[mejc2]

Keep your blind fold on Hooya. It helps you ignore the truth that is right in front of you. your own citing has done you in. the conclusion of the article is hardly quote mining. Wakefield admits it, you can't. too bad hooya, I had hoped you could become a real person some day.

you're too easy Hooya!

[Hooya2]

I find it incredibly amusing that despite all your squirming you can't find a flaw in Wakefield's argument. Radon could have caused the halos; the geology supports that; and you can't defend yourself against it. All you can do is quote-mine him in hopes that I'll forget the actual argument.

Cya mejc.

[mejc2]

I think you are a bit more positive about it than anyone that is published, including wakefield, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You're too easy Hooya!

C ya

[Hooya2]

"If wakefield is willing to state that further research is needed why aren't you?"

When has "further research" in geology ever been "needed" (lol)? I don't think we need the research in the first place, except for satisfying curiosity.

Of course Wakefield's paper does not 100% prove that all of Gentry's findings were wrong, and further research might even prove Wakefield wrong. I'm just arguing that 1.Gentry's arguments have been refuted and 2.Based on the current evidence, Gentry is wrong.

[Hooya2]

"However, he does not offer evidence for all of Gentry's work" He proposed a hypothesis that could be applied to all of Gentry's work, and supported it with evidence for those sites he was able to reach. Do you have a peer-reviewed paper offering evidence that the other sites are different?

"I apologize but I must repeat that in his conclusion he admits that he cannot account for Gentry's findings." Funny that his entire paper is about accounting for Gentry's findings, isn't it? Damn liar.

[mejc2]

I do understand thank you very much. However, he does not offer evidence for all of Gentry's work Read it again Hooya if you don't believe me. He offers evidence for some of the samples.I apologize but I must repeat that in his conclusion he admits that he cannot account for Gentry's findings. I am putting way more effort into this than I ever wanted to Hooya. If wakefield is willing to state that further research is needed why aren't you?

[Hooya2]

"they have made many suppositions or provided many other hypotheses for the halos that he found but I have never read any serious refutation of his actual findings."

You don't even understand what a refutation is, do you? It's proposing an alternate hypothesis and then offering evidence that your alternate is more likely to be correct. The paper I cited you--the Wakefield paper--provides a refutation, as do several others.