How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Nurvingiel]

I cross-posted with you buddy. I hope my above post offers clarification.

In short, though God is present in both Intelligent design theories and Theistic Evolution, they are not the same.

You could almost (not really, but almost) say for Theistic Evolution...

"The Theory of Evolution is correct, because God made it so."

However, that's far too simplistic for my beliefs. I hope you see what I mean though. In ThEv, for example, God doesn't actually guide the evolution of life forms more than create favourable situations (Edit: when necessary) for them to come about. That's what I think, and if that isn't in ThEv then my belief needs a new name. (Like my belief. )

I have the sinking feeling that I'm not being coherant here..........

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

turtles and elephants

Hey - I posted those creation stories from American Indian legends
I thought you would be interested in. I hope you saw them.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hey - I posted those creation stories from American Indian legends
I thought you would be interested in. I hope you saw them.

oh yes, they are very informative, some parallels between some aspects of buddhism/hinduism, and others have quite varying accounts themselves, all very interesting, isn't it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

In short, though God is present in both Intelligent design theories and Theistic Evolution, they are not the same.

You could almost (not really, but almost) say for Theistic Evolution...

"The Theory of Evolution is correct, because God made it so."

That's the same argument really for intelligent design - you are just watering down various sections. It still takes an intelligent being in your so-called theory.

[Nurvingiel]

I cross-posted with you again, aaa! (You need to fix one of your quote tags there.)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hence Intelligent Design. Intelligent design espouses that an intelligent being was behind everything that happened - which is what you describe here.

No, that's not Intelligent Design. There's more to that theory than "God made stuff", and I don't personally subscribe to it.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Can you prove god exists?

Of course not! (The obvious question follows...)

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

which god?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

Scientific study isn't about proving something doesn't exist - it's a matter of proving it does. Is science busy tryign to prove that ghosts don't exist - or does it assume they don't - but tries to prove that they do?

[Nurvingiel]

More cross-posting...

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's the same argument really for intelligent design - you are just watering down various sections. It still takes an intelligent being in your so-called theory.

So-called theory? Just because less people believe that than ToE doesn't mean I have a wrong or stupid theory. Is it really that fashionable to not believe in God? I don't have anything against atheists or agnostics at all. It's worth pointing out though, that your personal beliefs are not better than mine JD. I don't appreciate your tone with "so-called"
If I misunderstood what you meant, than I retract my mad faces. Unfortunately, I don't think I did.

[Nurvingiel]

Any god Chrys.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Scientific study isn't about proving something doesn't exist - it's a matter of proving it does. Is science busy tryign to prove that ghosts don't exist - or does it assume they don't - but tries to prove that they do?

Well, I'm not saying that you're wrong because God exists. Therefore, I don't need to prove that God exists to validate my beliefs. At some point, everyone needs to make an assumption in their beliefs (you too ).

If you are saying I'm wrong because I can't prove God exists, then you need to prove that God doesn't exist in order to validate this statement. If you can't prove God doesn't exist, how do you know I'm wrong?

See what I mean?

EDIT2: By the way, nice dodge. It's worth noting, that as your beliefs do not hinge on proving something doesn't exist, mine do not hinge on proving God does exist.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

is it proveable that 'Tim' does or doesn't exist?
and what does he want with coconuts?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So-called theory? Just because less people believe that than ToE doesn't mean I have a wrong or stupid theory. Is it really that fashionable to not believe in God? I don't have anything against atheists or agnostics at all. It's worth pointing out though, that your personal beliefs are not better than mine JD. I don't appreciate your tone with "so-called"
If I misunderstood what you meant, than I retract my mad faces. Unfortunately, I don't think I did.

The so-called theory comment was in response to your unscientific feeling which can't be considered a true theory. You just made up that theory on the fly - that is why I said "so-called" theory. I don't really care if you remove the mad faces or not. I didn't say anythign about your believe in god, I don't say anythign about rian's belief in god - but SCIETIFIC theories have to be based on some observable data. You're belief in a god is not scientific.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, I'm not saying that you're wrong because God exists. Therefore, I don't need to prove that God exists to validate my beliefs. At some point, everyone needs to make an assumption in their beliefs (you too ).

If you are saying I'm wrong because I can't prove God exists, then you need to prove that God doesn't exist in order to validate this statement. If you can't prove God doesn't exist, how do you know I'm wrong?

Where did I say you were wrong? I just basicalky pointing out that you can not include god into a scientific theory - because you can not prove god. I have said this repeatedly in the past. God is a catch all - if one doesn't understand the way something happend - one can just say it was god. But that would just cause us to be still stuck in the stone age with that attitude.

[edit]My argument is merely that you remove god from any scientific theory. I don't care one way or the other if god does or does not exist.[/edit]

[Insidious Rex]

As I see it theres four scenarios (as far as this debate is concerned at least):

1. Science Only: Evolution is a natural aspect of our universe and there is no guiding or initiating force involved.

2. Initializer: An "Intelligent Designer" has set things in motion either at the big bang or somewhere along the way. He has made the rules and brought together the ingrediants and everything just spirals naturally from there. There is no further guidance. In this way evolution becomes the natural aspect of the divine.

3. Guider: An "Intelligent Designer" started stuff as above but also subtly (or not so subtly) took part in guiding his design toward a preconcieved goal. In this way evolution becomes the direct tool of the divine.

4. Old Testament Creationism: God created the heavens and the earth! Sorry... an "intelligent designer" did... And he created all known creatures in whole form purposefully and with exacting perfection. In this way evolution is simply an illusion.

So then the real key is finding evidence for EACH of the above scenarios. We already have reams for the first one. Who wants to tackle the other three...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So then the real key is finding evidence for EACH of the above scenarios. We already have reams for the first one. Who wants to tackle the other three...

Well I've asked Rian repeatedly to put forth SCIENTIFIC evidence for the 4th one - Creationism - without relying on comparing it to evolution or with bringing god, the bible or religion into the equation. This includes not knocking holes into evolution and then saying that's why creationism is more logical.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Your so-called theory was in response to your unscientific feeling which can't be considered a true theory. You just made up that theory on the fly - that is why I said "so-called" theory. I don't really care if you remove the mad faces or not. I didn't say anythign about your believe in god, I don't say anythign about rian's belief in god - but SCIETIFIC theories have to be based on some observable data. You're belief in a god is not scientific.

Oops, I was editing my last post and I missed the new page.

My edit was this:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

EDIT2: By the way, nice dodge. It's worth noting, that as your beliefs do not hinge on proving something doesn't exist, mine do not hinge on proving God does exist.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Your so-called theory was in response to your unscientific feeling which can't be considered a true theory. You just made up that theory on the fly - that is why I said "so-called" theory. I don't really care if you remove the mad faces or not. I didn't say anythign about your believe in god, I don't say anythign about rian's belief in god - but SCIETIFIC theories have to be based on some observable data. You're belief in a god is not scientific.

Personally I don't see the harm in the use of the word theory. How is it not a theory? I'm not necessarily making claims about having a hard core scientific theory here. In fact, I'm not making any claims on science at all. I was just stating my view of the world, which is not silly, or something I pulled out of my ass. Because I didn't just think of this on the fly, I've been thinking about this for a long time.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Where did I say you were wrong? I just basicalky pointing out that you can not include god into a scientific theory - because you can not prove god. I have said this repeatedly in the past. God is a catch all - if one doesn't understand the way something happend - one can just say it was god. But that would just cause us to be still stuck in the stone age with that attitude.

You really seem to not think much of any religious belief at all. I don't really understand this ire, but whatever.
You're the one who attached "scientific" incidentally. I still think you can say something is a theory without stating it's a provable scientific theory. (You would say scientific theory to mean that.)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for reading your mind - it's not that hard to read in what you post. I see you've now resorted to sarcasm.

I know you were directing this statement at Ri, but I just have to point out that you're not one to talk JD.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I've asked Rian repeatedly to put forth SCIENTIFIC evidence for the 4th one - Creationism - without relying on comparing it to evolution or with bringing god, the bible or religion into the equation. This includes not knocking holes into evolution and then saying that's why creationism is more logical.

Well no need to harrass her endlessly. Logically, its not too hard to think what kind of evidence WOULD point toward a creationistic model:

You should see animals in full form all at one level of the fossil record. you should NOT see any lineage within the fossil record. you should not see any real variation in date within the fossil record. you should not see domination of the early fossil record by simply aquatic based life forms. You should see things spread out fairly evenly. You should not see fossils of ancient sea creatures on the highest mountains of the world. You should not see faults in any design structure created by a perfect god. You should not see any redundencies or useless body components within gods perfect designs. what else am i missing?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

a fossil of an apple with a bite out of it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Personally I don't see the harm in the use of the word theory. How is it not a theory? I'm not necessarily making claims about having a hard core scientific theory here. In fact, I'm not making any claims on science at all. I was just stating my view of the world, which is not silly, or something I pulled out of my ass. Because I didn't just think of this on the fly, I've been thinking about this for a long time.

That's a belief then - not a theory. A theory is based on scientific evidence - not unobservable, unproveable belief. We see changes in the fossil record over time - that makes up the theory of evvolution - the fact that god did it would be a belief.

You really seem to not think much of any religious belief at all. I don't really understand this ire, but whatever.

I feel religion has no role in scientific research. That is all - there is no ire against religion as you put it.

You're the one who attached "scientific" incidentally. I still think you can say something is a theory without stating it's a provable scientific theory. (You would say scientific theory to mean that.)

NO a theory requires backup evidence, belief does not. "Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

I know you were directing this statement at Ri, but I just have to point out that you're not one to talk JD.

There's a difference - I don't claim to be all innocent or nice in my posts.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well no need to harrass her endlessly. Logically, its not too hard to think what kind of evidence WOULD point toward a creationistic model:

You should see animals in full form all at one level of the fossil record. you should NOT see any lineage within the fossil record. you should not see any real variation in date within the fossil record. you should not see domination of the early fossil record by simply aquatic based life forms. You should see things spread out fairly evenly. You should not see fossils of ancient sea creatures on the highest mountains of the world. You should not see faults in any design structure created by a perfect god. You should not see any redundencies or useless body components within gods perfect designs. what else am i missing?

I'm asking her for the SCIENTIFIC evidence for this though - not the results or what you should see - but the proof that this is the case. I don't see that in the fossil record though.

As for harrassing her endlessly - its' simple - she can state what I'm asking for and we can move on and discuss the scientific facts for Creationism.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

if indeed there are any

<< seperates his beliefs from scientific research