Comments on An American Studies: American Studies is BACK!

Thanks Dad! Haha I wish I had read yours before I ...

2009-05-19T20:50:13.751-05:00

Thanks Dad! Haha I wish I had read yours before I commented on the first one... Actually I'm glad I didn't because I liked getting my thoughts out.

Kimber, the question is not "can YOU take this information and use it to explain the creation of man?" but rather, "did Darwin take that info and use it to explain....?" because HE is the expert. It doesn't matter what we highschoolers think is logical in our heads and whatnot, it matters what the experts have proven for us. Darwin DID connect it to the evolution of humans. So the flaw you provided isn't there.

I just have to say that i really like what mr. bol...

2009-05-10T22:25:00.001-05:00

I just have to say that i really like what mr. bolos pointed out that "the burden of proof is on the person making the argument, not the person who is perceived to need convincing"... It made me think of the term, innocent until proven guilty. Unless you have evidence to support that someone is guilty, they are innocent and it is the responsibility of the person proving them guilty to find sufficient evidence.

WELL PUT BOLOS

I just have to say that i really like what mr. bol...

2009-05-10T22:25:00.000-05:00

What EVIDENCE are you providing here, Kimber? And...

2009-05-10T14:31:00.000-05:00

What EVIDENCE are you providing here, Kimber? And why are you avoiding the critical distinction of the word "theory"? By beginning species do you mean homo sapiens? This is a different question than either of the posts. Perhaps you can re-read Mr. B's post (particularly the "burden of proof" fallacy and the importance of operational definitions) and then respond again with those ideas in mind.

I didn’t read this blog post before I commented on...

2009-05-10T09:47:00.000-05:00

I didn’t read this blog post before I commented on the previous one. However, there is an argument supporting my claim that both of these theories seem flawed. First, creationism is solely based on a story from the Bible where God created the world in seven days. There are no scientific facts to support this story except that man exists on earth today. That realization neither affirms nor refutes creationism. In contrast, evolution fails to explain how the beginning species of the evolutionary process came to be. Scientific evidence supports Darwin’s observations of the Galapagos finches and their evolving beaks. The question that arises is: can you take this information and use it to explain the creation of man?

I'm glad that we are finally moving away from JT. ...

2009-05-04T10:50:00.000-05:00

I'm glad that we are finally moving away from JT. After a month of reading blogs solely based on JT it gets pretty repetative. While I know it's necessary, it would have been nice to have some alternate blogging assignments during this period of time. Regardless, I think our class is off to a good start with all this creationism and evolution talk.