How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I was just being hopeful, I guess. I guess the truth is that you don't give a rip about me; is that right? Well, I very definitely give a rip about you and NOTHING you do can change that. I believe in loving people, and the people that are hardest to love need it the most, IMO. However, loving does not by any means mean being a doormat!

There's one of your great slights you do to people "the people that are hardest to love need it the most'. I guess what you are implying is that I'm hard to love. Also- it would have been nice again if you had quoted the whole thing - beside just picking my quote apart. Then you wouldn't give the false impression that I don't care about you - but I don't see what caring about has to do with disagreeing with you.

I think I'll take you at your word and grant that you think you don't see any scientific evidence to support creationism. But if you accuse me of being blinded again, I might return the favor and discuss why I think YOU are so blinded that you can't see the evidence I've presented over and over.

Be my guest. I would rather you say it instead of acting all smug like this.

For the gazillionth and third time, I do NOT believe that I HAVE to accept creationism in order to fully accept God. Will you continue to deny me my right to speak for myself in this matter? If so, I must do the same thing to you, for I think truth and fairness are a part of love.

You may say that - byut as IR pointed out - you can NOT have creationism WITHOUT god. I will continue to point out your inconsistancy in this matter.

I have such a high regard for truth. I don't care if I come across questions or ideas that might conflict with my faith. If they are valid questions, then I seriously and carefully think about them. I'm not in this thread, where I quite often get ridiculed and misrepresented, to win a debate. I'm in this thread because, as I said, it just galls my integrity and my regard for the truth to think that some people think that certain aspects of evolution are PROVEN, instead of merely EXTRAPOLATED. And any person with a fair amount of exposure to math can explain the dangers of extrapolation, let alone interpolation! And the degree of extrapolation is SO immense that it's even scarier to think about! I mean, we're talking - what? - several thousand years of data, and BILLIONS of years of extrapolation?!?!

Exuse me - you started this thread - I thought it was about EVIDENCE of CREATIONISM. Did I misunderstand something in the title? I'm wondering - because now again - you are attaking evolution to support your belief. That is my problem with your arguments. Thank you for clearly pointing out for ALL to see what your purpose is of this thread. I think we should now have the title rechanged as you had asked in LCoU's thread about Catholic Schools Banning Charity because this thread is misrepresented by your own admission. It should be "Why I Think Evolution is Bunk".

Considering the lack of evidence and the degree of extrapolation, I just can't swallow evolution (the macroevolution part) with any degree of integrity, when IMO the ACTUAL data points the other way.

And so I rest my case. You again state that you believe in creationism because you can not see how the evidence in evolution is supported. Again without prividing true evidence for creationism. What is the evidence that points in the other way? I mean at one point in time - science felt that reptiles came from Dinosaurs - now evidence doesn't show that and science has chnaged - now it is felt with much evidence - that birds actually evolved from dinosaurs. With creationism - you are still trying to fit it into the genesis story - while science evolves and changes based on the evidence. You on the other hand have started with a story and are now trying to fit the evidence into it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Not correct. You can't separate the belief of God to the belief that He created World (I assume we all are speaking of the christian God), but the belief in the Creation is not the same as creationism, as you surely know.

Well some greater power had to do the creation and pop us here on earth out of nothing and that's what creationist want us to believe. So no - you can not seperate creationism from god. Creationism REQUIRES a god to be involved. That is the scientific problem with the whole thing. Then when schools refused to teach creationism because there is no true scientific backing for it - they cam e up with the "intelligent design" theory - which is basically god managing evolution. So again - they place god into the requirement of the theory.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So you continue to disregard my statement that I do NOT believe in creationism for any other reason than the data.

I'd just like to officially note that down here. You refuse to believe what I say, even tho I say it over and over. Why, then, should I believe what YOU say? I think that I must decline to believe what YOU say at this point, until you agree to believe what I say. That's really the only thing I can see to do at this point . Do you have any other suggestions (that are fair! )

it doesn't bother me if you believe me or not. You can believe or think what you wish.

Again, look at the data part of the discussion. You completely and unfairly ignore this part.
And you can't separate out the non-directedness from evolutionISM.

Evolution doesn't say whether there is a god or not a god. So your argument makes zero sense here. Evolution just says that there was series of changes that took place to bring us to this point. it completely ignores the question of god. So are you basically saying that evolution is not practical science because it doesn't take the issue of god into the equation? As far as I'm concerned - the belief in god doesn't belong in the equation.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also- it would have been nice again if you had quoted the whole thing - beside just picking my quote apart. Then you wouldn't give the false impression that I don't care about you - but I don't see what caring about has to do with disagreeing with you.

here's the whole quote - "I don't know why you would feel a sense of concern from me. I don't care if you belief the world is flat. I'm just discussing the issue of creationism and how I don't see you bringing forth any scientific evidence to support it." How are those other sentences dealing with you caring for me or not? How is this picking your quote apart? But there's the whole quote.

To me, people are a part of a discussion. It seemed like you were saying something in a more caring manner than usual, so I commented on it, then you said "I don't know why you would feel a sense of concern from me." So what could I conclude but that you DON'T feel a sense of concern from you?

Anyway, you said it was false that you don't care about me, so I'll believe you that you DO care about me. I'm glad

Be my guest. I would rather you say it instead of acting all smug like this.

I"m sorry you think I was acting smug. I wasn't, but I can see how you interpreted it that way.

You may say that - byut as IR pointed out - you can NOT have creationism WITHOUT god. I will continue to point out your inconsistancy in this matter.

So what does that have to do with my statement that I would believe in evolutionism if the data supported it? I would just believe that God was behind evolutionism, which as you evolutionists point out, is conceiveable, because evolution doesn't explicitly deny this could happen. There is NO inconsistency.

I repeat - if I believed the data supported evolution more, I would believe that evolution happened, with the additional philosophical belief that God provided the raw materials and set up the natural processes. The evolution I would believe in would be identical to the one you believe in. I would just add a philosophical part - that God is behind the raw materials and natural processes.

Exuse me - you started this thread - I thought it was about EVIDENCE of CREATIONISM. Did I misunderstand something in the title? I'm wondering - because now again - you are attaking evolution to support your belief. That is my problem with your arguments. Thank you for clearly pointing out for ALL to see what your purpose is of this thread. I think we should now have the title rechanged as you had asked in LCoU's thread about Catholic Schools Banning Charity because this thread is misrepresented by your own admission. It should be "Why I Think Evolution is Bunk".

We're discussing evolution because as I said it's related to the discussion on creationism. Didn't you read that part? Again, you're ignoring what I say. And we're also discussing evolution because YOU keep saying that it's impossible that I couldn't believe in it, and I want to correct that totally wrong statement.

I'd love to go over the evidence for creationism with Jonathan or anyone else that is interested, but I refuse to let untrue statements about my beliefs on evolution go unaddressed.

And so I rest my case. You again state that you believe in creationism because you can not see how the evidence in evolution is supported. Again without prividing true evidence for creationism.

WHY in the WORLD do you keep IGNORING my reference to the data sections of my posts on creationism?! How can you rest your case when you continually IGNORE my requests to look at the data section of my posts about creationism?

You on the other hand have started with a story and are now trying to fit the evidence into it.

And evolutionists have started with a story called macroevolution, and keep trying to fit the evidence into it, in EXACTLY the same manner! Gradualism, the thing that Darwin originally proposed, didn't fit the data, so did they chuck the theory? NO - they just changed from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium.

And I repeat - please check the DATA sections of my posts on creationism so we can get back ON TOPIC!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nope. See data sections.

Data sections.

Again, apparently you don't read my posts I've stated areas where I think the data supports EVOLUTION more than creationism. After all, I'm openminded, and truth is very important to me. But you typically get my posts wrong so I'm not surprised you missed this!

I have seen many of your posts rian - it doesn't mean that overall you knock evolution to back up creationism. And it's not that I get your posts wrong - it's just that I don't just take what you say in one post - but look at all the past history of what you have said about the subject. This gives me a much better picture of your opinion and beliefs than what you say in one post.

Nope - see data sections.

Yes! See data sections.

Wow- more data sections. You can go back from 2 years ago where I constantly picked apart you "data sections" - I'm really in no mood to go back and have to rehash all that again. It is rather tedious. All I'm asking for is straight out - one simple post on WHY YOU believe creationism is more likely than evolution. It's not that hard to do - if you have the data to back it up. But you do these long convoluted posts that just go around in circles and usually there is something in them where you pick apart evolution. Now I think that if you are going to say thatg creationism has more scientific evidence than evolution - I want you to state it - right here and now.

Scientists should be impartial when they look at data.

They should be impartial - but when it comes to the question of creationism - it doesn't seem like they can be. Creationists started with the hypothesis and are now trying to fit the evidence into it.

Evolution involves an unproven and unproveable belief that macro-evolutionary changes happened. We don't KNOW this, yet evolutionists cling to this belief.

It's not a matter of clinging to macro-evolution. It's just that that explains best the changes in animals over the period of time - the fact that now we are finding between the time of the dinosaurs and birds - combination animals - where they look like dinosaurs - have all the featurs of dinosaurs - yet also have the begginings of feathers. Creationism on the other hand which to throw out these pieces of evidence.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So are you basically saying that evolution is not practical science because it doesn't take the issue of god into the equation?

No. I've never said that, and I don't say it now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

here's the whole quote - "I don't know why you would feel a sense of concern from me. I don't care if you belief the world is flat. I'm just discussing the issue of creationism and how I don't see you bringing forth any scientific evidence to support it." How are those other sentences dealing with you caring for me or not? But there's the whole quote.

To me, people are a part of a discussion. It seemed like you were saying something in a more caring manner than usual, so I commented on it, then you said "I don't know why you would feel a sense of concern from me." So what could I conclude but that you DON'T feel a sense of concern from you?

Anyway, you said it was false that you don't care about me, so I'll believe you that you DO care about me. I'm glad

Whether I care about someone has nothing to do with a discussion like this. It has merely to do with the subject matter at hand. And as fo ryour comment "saying something in a more caring manner than usual' - you might be surpised - but I don't really care if people think that I come on too strong on entmoot or not. But by that sentence - I must assume that you think I'm basically an uncaring person.

I"m sorry you think I was acting smug. I didn't mean to.

You actually do a lot of times - but it doesn't matter to me. You actually did it in this post when you made the comment - "It seemed like you were saying something in a more caring manner than usual". You get these little digs in there - but then play the innocent.

So what does that have to do with my statement that I would believe in evolutionism if the data supported it? I would just believe that God was behind evolutionism, which as you evolutionists point out, is conceiveable, because evolution doesn't explicitly deny this could happen. There is no inconsistency.

I repeat - if I believed the data supported evolution more, I would believe that evolution happened, with the caveat that God provided the raw materials and set up the natural processes. The evolution I would believe in would be identical to the one you believe in. I would just add a philosophical part - that God is behind the raw materials and natural processes.

But there's the rub. See - then you would have a hard time believing the bible. That's the dilemma there.

We're discussing evolution because as I said it's related to the discussion on creationism. Didn't you read that part? Again, you're ignoring what I say. And we're also discussing evolution because YOU keep saying that it's impossible that I couldn't believe in it.

I'm not ignoring anything at all. This is the reason you just gave for being in this thread - "I'm in this thread because, as I said, it just galls my integrity and my regard for the truth to think that some people think that certain aspects of evolution are PROVEN, instead of merely EXTRAPOLATED." My poiint is that that HAS NOTHING whatsoever to you providing evidence of creationism. You initially said that the reason for the thread was to provide evidence of creationism - now it's basically to educate people on the truth and correct their erroneous ideas about evolution.

I'd love to go over the evidence for creationism with Jonathan or anyone else that is interested, but I refuse to let untrue statements about my beliefs on evolution go unaddressed.

You basically want to talk to jonathan or someone nice, unlike me, because they will let you go on a free ride and freely let you state your opinions without fully questioning or pointing on inconsistencies. Jonathan will basically just listen and politely say "well I disagree" and move on. I'm not like that. as for let your statements on evolution go unaddressed, I've addressed those things many times - you just have to look at the Should Evolution be Taught in School thread.

WHY in the WORLD do you keep IGNORING my reference to the data sections of my posts on creationism?! How can you rest your case when you continually IGNORE my requests to look at the data section of my posts about creationism?

Rian - I don't ignore your "data sections" and you know it. I've had this same discussion with you for 2 years now - so don't try to give the impression that I just ignore you or i've never looked at the evidence you have presented. You know damn well I have looked at the evidence you have presented. As I said in the past - this is a circular argument with the same things being said over and over again.

And evolutionists have started with a story called macroevolution, and keep trying to fit the evidence into it, in EXACTLY the same manner! Gradualism, the thing that Darwin originally proposed, didn't fit the data, so did they chuck the theory? NO - they just changed from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium.

You have that wrong. Evolutionists started out with evidence and they thought - what would explain this occurence. As for chucking out a theory - any scientist would know that theories evolve. If something doesn't quite fit into the theory scientist ask - "well what could possibly explain this?" If they can't explain it right away - they will put the evidence to the side, work on that as a seperate issue and try to come up with something. They can't throw out all the evidence when something doesn't work out - they try to find out fi there is an explanation within the existing theory for what they have discovered. Contrary to your statement - initially "evolutionists" as you call these scientists started out in the same place creationists started out with and that is the book of genesis. But then observations and links were discovered which don't fit into genesis.

And I repeat - please check the DATA sections of my posts on creationism so we can get back ON TOPIC!

I thouhgt we were on topic. You said that evolution is part of the discussion - and anyway - I'm merely asking you to telling me in one post how creationism is more supported by science.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No. I've never said that, and I don't say it now.

Wll you said the following - "And you can't separate out the non-directedness from evolutionISM." which leads me to believe that you find a problem with evolution or my belief because I don't look for any guiding hand in the process. I also don't get why you called it "evolutionISM" when it's just "Evolution" - but I'm sure you had some meaning behind it you intended to indicate here.

[Rían]

btw. were you talking about the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis from the National Geographic article, when you were talking about recent bird/dinosaur finds?

Originally Posted by jd

Rian - I don't ignore your "data sections" and you know it.

Of course you ignore them if you say that I only support creationism by my belief in God!

I might put up a one-post summary tomorrow, or I might refer you again to my data posts - I don't know why you wouldn't prefer more data, but I'll consider a brief summary post for you. And if you disagree with everything I said in my data posts, why would you want a summary of them? I don't understand.

It's late now, I"m off to bed!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

btw. were you talking about the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis from the National Geographic article, when you were talking about recent bird/dinosaur finds?

No- I was talking about various finds that have been done - no particular article - no particular location. [Edit]I looked up what you referred to and I'm not talking about that fossil. That was believed to be a flying dinosaur with feathers - the fossils I'm referring to did not fly and they only had the beginnings of feathers. But as you can see - when science makes a mistake, they come forward and admit it. I'm sure you were hoping to use that as "see - I have to correct your misinformation".[/edit]

Of course you ignore them if you say that I only support creationism by my belief in God!

For someone who is always complaing about me ignoring you - you seem to do a lot of ignoring of my posts. I repeat again - I never said that only support creationsim by your belief in god. I do say however that your belief in creationism is dictated by your need to believe in the BIBLE. That has nothing to with you presenting facts or how you support your belief. You on the other hand - defend your belief by ignoring a lot of evidence that points to evolution. To put it plainly - I think your need to believe in the bible overrides the scientific evidence, again - this has NOTHING to do with facts you try presenting.

I might put up a one-post summary tomorrow, or I might refer you again to my data posts - I don't know why you wouldn't prefer more data, but I'll consider a brief summary post for you. And if you disagree with everything I said in my data posts, why would you want a summary of them? I don't understand.

Because usually your "data posts" are very convoluted to put it plainly. You should be able to state why you believe in creationism in one post. I summarized the theory of evolution in one post. Laid out how it was very simple for fish to evolve to land based mammals.

It's late now, I"m off to bed!

It is later here you know.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

two non-Archaeoraptor liaoningensis pieces of scientific evidence to supplement JD's post

Archaeopteryx - once thought t be the first bird, now shown to have more in common with coelophysids and coelurosaurs

Syntarsis - once thought to be a dinosaur, now shown to have much in common with pre-ostrich aviformes

both are neither bird nor dinosaur, where does this fit in?

Although most schools of thought now class aves (birds) as a sub-class of the class dinosauria, dinosaurs having been proven to not fit into the class reptilia

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well some greater power had to do the creation and pop us here on earth out of nothing and that's what creationist want us to believe. So no - you can not seperate creationism from god. Creationism REQUIRES a god to be involved. That is the scientific problem with the whole thing. Then when schools refused to teach creationism because there is no true scientific backing for it - they cam e up with the "intelligent design" theory - which is basically god managing evolution. So again - they place god into the requirement of the theory.

Sorry, I misread this:

Originally Posted by JD

Originally Posted by jerseydevil
You want to say it was all part of a phylosophical discussion - but as IR pointed out - you can't sperate the belief of god in creationism.

into this:

Originally Posted by Nobody, I just misread it

Originally Posted by jerseydevil
You want to say it was all part of a phylosophical discussion - but as IR pointed out - you can't sperate the belief of god and creationism.

My point was that you can believe in God and in the Creation, but not in the theories of Creationism... but I agree you cannot believe the theories of Creationism and not believe in God.

Anyway, I'd add that I'm using there the term "believe" in two senses: "faith believing" for God, and "reason-phisical experience believing" for the theories of Creationism.

Although both senses have in common to be reffering to things presented as truth to the mind, the "believing" in the theories of Creationism might be explained in rational-experimental terms, at least to the point of demonstrate (or at least to show the possibility) that the world (cosmos, whatever) has a begining and that their initial forces cannot be explained by themselsves. Of course, to speak of Creation you must add another data that comes from faith: that that non-found explanation is personal and it's our God.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The problem with the monkey simulation (and the eye simulation you'll see in sites like talkorigins) is this : There is a goal.

Let me repeat - there is a goal. I can absolutely guarantee, and I would bet my very life on it, that somewhere in the program there is that Shakespeare line that the SIMULATED monkeys eventually come up with.
[...] And the thing about the theory of evolution, as it is currently taught in mainstream education, is that there are no goals. There are NO goals! There is only chance and survival of the fittest.

Yes, the monkey program has a goal whereas evolution hasn't. I haven't claimed the opposite . I still think it is a good analogy to what I said about how living organisms thanks to evolution can get more and more complex. Let me come back to what I said before:

Originally Posted by Jon (that's me!)

The thing is that proteins seem to 'remember' when they're folding in a beneficial way. So the theory goes - during the evolution, partly correct intermediates of proteines have been retained in organisms and have been able to evolve further. Sometimes, the intermediates have 'forgotten' how they're supposed to fold but they still 'remember' more than they 'forget'.So if you look at the biochemical properties of the things we’re all made of – proteins and other molecules – they fit very well in the theory of evolution.

Biomolecular intermediates "remember" beneficial structures. And since they have no goal whatsoever, they also "forget" things (unlike the typing monkey). I repeat, they forget, it wouldn't have made sense otherwise. However these molecules "remember" more than they "forget" since what they "remember" is indeed beneficial to the organism - survival of the fittest and all that evolutionary crap . Organisms with substances that "forget" their beneficial foldings and structures are less likely to survive than organisms with substances that "remember" them. Makes sense to me

So basically, I think we can both agree that the typing monkey analogy is nothing more than an analogy to make the biochemistry easier to grasp and comprehend. You must admit that the analogy was at least a little bit good, no?

Please JD and RÃ*an, can't you PM each other instead? I'm getting kind of bored seeing you posting in circles, page up and down.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please JD and RÃ*an, can't you PM each other instead? I'm getting kind of bored seeing you posting in circles, page up and down.

I'm sorry it bothers you - but you aren't the only one on the thread. It wasn't in circles anymore then the whole damn argument over evolution and creationism. You don't have to read it if it bores you. [edit]BTW - I got your little e-mail notification, so I know you changed your post. Not that you will ever see this obviously [/edit]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Wow- more data sections. You can go back from 2 years ago where I constantly picked apart you "data sections" - I'm really in no mood to go back and have to rehash all that again. It is rather tedious. All I'm asking for is straight out - one simple post on WHY YOU believe creationism is more likely than evolution. It's not that hard to do - if you have the data to back it up. But you do these long convoluted posts that just go around in circles and usually there is something in them where you pick apart evolution. Now I think that if you are going to say thatg creationism has more scientific evidence than evolution - I want you to state it - right here and now.

I started to put together a post, in response to your request for "one simple post" on WHY I believe creationism is more likely than evolutionism, but then I realized why bother, since you don't accept the data in my longer posts? Why should it make any difference if I present a summary of the data I've presented already that you don't accept? So I see no need to present a summary post.

It's not a matter of clinging to macro-evolution. It's just that that explains best the changes in animals over the period of time - the fact that now we are finding between the time of the dinosaurs and birds - combination animals - where they look like dinosaurs - have all the featurs of dinosaurs - yet also have the begginings of feathers.

Again, you're turning a mere ASSUMPTION into a fact. "The changes in animals over a period of time" is ASSUMED to be true. It's not KNOWN to be true.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please JD and RÃ*an, can't you PM each other instead? I'm getting kind of bored seeing you posting in circles, page up and down

I"m getting bored, too - I think it's pointless, and I think I'll stop. JD has said he doesn't accept the data I present, which is fine - it's his choice. I'll leave it at that.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please JD and RÃ*an, can't you PM each other instead? I'm getting kind of bored seeing you posting in circles, page up and down

Um... you could try not reading the thread...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yes, the monkey program has a goal whereas evolution hasn't. I haven't claimed the opposite . I still think it is a good analogy to what I said about how living organisms thanks to evolution can get more and more complex. Let me come back to what I said before:Biomolecular intermediates "remember" beneficial structures. And since they have no goal whatsoever, they also "forget" things (unlike the typing monkey). I repeat, they forget, it wouldn't have made sense otherwise. However these molecules "remember" more than they "forget" since what they "remember" is indeed beneficial to the organism - survival of the fittest and all that evolutionary crap . Organisms with substances that "forget" their beneficial foldings and structures are less likely to survive than organisms with substances that "remember" them. Makes sense to me

So basically, I think we can both agree that the typing monkey analogy is nothing more than an analogy to make the biochemistry easier to grasp and comprehend. You must admit that the analogy was at least a little bit good, no?

I moved your typing monkey analogy here for reference: (btw, did you see my typing monkey joke? I think it's hysterical! )

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Finally I'd like to mention the typing monkey analogy. That is, a monkey randomly poking a typewriter could, if enough time was given, for instance write a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet. This would take an awful lot of time - unless the monkey when he hit a correct key were actually told it was correct and the monkey could remember that. Suddenly it would take very little time compared to before. Check this site out.

The thing is that proteins seem to 'remember' when they're folding in a beneficial way. So the theory goes - during the evolution, partly correct intermediates of proteines have been retained in organisms and have been able to evolve further. Sometimes, the intermediates have 'forgotten' how they're supposed to fold but they still 'remember' more than they 'forget'.
So if you look at the biochemical properties of the things we’re all made of – proteins and other molecules – they fit very well in the theory of evolution.

Here's where I disagree with what you're saying - and perhaps it's because I don't fully understand it, so please help me out here - you say that these molecules "remember" their beneficial foldings and structures. However, I don't see how there's any "remembering" involved in the masses and masses of new and unrelated beneficial mutations involved in going from one-celled-prototype to human. When you talk of "remembering", are you talking merely of a cell retaining its mutation? Or are you saying that it "remembers" a general trend towards a goal of increased surviveability and somehow directs the subsequent mutations towards that goal? Or are you saying something entirely different?

See, I tend to see the typing monkey analogy used to support macroevolution, in which case I think it is entirely inappropriate, for reasons I explained. And from what I can tell, it's also fairly inappropriate for your case, because you're talking about accumulated, related remembering, and "remembering" for things that haven't happened yet (i.e., the beneficial mutations coming up). Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Jon

So basically, I think we can both agree that the typing monkey analogy is nothing more than an analogy to make the biochemistry easier to grasp and comprehend. You must admit that the analogy was at least a little bit good, no?

Yes, it is good as an analogy to describe an idea However, I have problems with the idea, as I laid out - there is a goal in the analogy, and there is NOT a goal in the idea, at least as far as macroevolution is concerned. For your example, it might be a good analogy, but I need to know more about your example, so I asked you some questions about it. Did my questions make sense? I can try to clarify them if you don't understand what I'm asking - I wasn't sure how to word it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I started to put together a post, in response to your request for "one simple post" on WHY I believe creationism is more likely than evolutionism, but then I realized why bother, since you don't accept the data in my longer posts? Why should it make any difference if I present a summary of the data I've presented already that you don't accept? So I see no need to present a summary post.

That's because you know you can't. As I said - and I did look at yoru past posts that you have linked on the first page and they're convoluted. You take so much time to go off on tangents, that you never really end up explaining anything at all.

Again, you're turning a mere ASSUMPTION into a fact. "The changes in animals over a period of time" is ASSUMED to be true. It's not KNOWN to be true.

Where the hell did I say it was fact? Here you go misrepresenting what I say again. But oh well - I'm getting rather used to you twisting my words or reading what you wish to.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I"m getting bored, too - I think it's pointless, and I think I'll stop. JD has said he doesn't accept the data I present, which is fine - it's his choice. I'll leave it at that.

It's nto that I don't accept your data - it's that you present it in a convoluted manner. I want you to come out straight out - not defend creationism on the grounds of your belief that evolution doesn't work and actually explain it. You won't do it though without going into 7 posts that actually - say hardly anything.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of what makes you actually believe that creationism is true. You seem unwilling to do this.

BTW - I find it rather funny that for 2 years you've had no problem going around in circles, as you even mention in the complaint about religion being dragged into so many threads thread - yet you now say it's boring for you because I've basically don't politely say to you "oh okay" and move on - like so many other people do here. You want people to just accept what you have to say and I don't. I've asked for evidence in the "Should Evolution be Taught in Schools" - I got the same responses from you there. Oh well. I suppose you really can't back up your statements in one simple post.