How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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.

For the sake of clarity I'll say belief then. (I have used theory and belief interchangeably sometimes).

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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

I agree with you about science. The reason I said "ire" is because you seemed to really think believing in God was a silly idea. If this is not the case, I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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."

As I said above, I can say belief too WRT my beliefs. Theory has been used in non-scientific theory ways, but consistently saying belief does make sense for the sake of clarity.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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

RÃ*an doesn't claim to be nice and innocent, but people say that about her since she usually is. (Well, I wouldn't say she's innocent, per se, but we are Bliss Ninny's.) I just thought it was funny that you would call someone out for sarcasm usage.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

For the sake of clarity I'll say belief then. (I have used theory and belief interchangeably sometimes).

Well then I would feel better and no arguments than.

I agree with you about science. The reason I said "ire" is because you seemed to really think believing in God was a silly idea. If this is not the case, I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

In other threads I've defended religion and Rian in particular for her beliefs. That's not the issue - the issue is bringing religion or god into scientific study.

As I said above, I can say belief too WRT my beliefs. Theory has been used in non-scientific theory ways, but consistently saying belief does make sense for the sake of clarity.

Works for me - we're in agreement.

RÃ*an doesn't claim to be nice and innocent, but people say that about her since she usually is. (Well, I wouldn't say she's innocent, per se, but we are Bliss Ninny's.) I just thought it was funny that you would call someone out for sarcasm usage.

I only called her out because everyone thinks she never says anything cutting. There have been numerous digs at me from yesterday's posts too. I don't deny I'm often sarcastic. Have you noticed the smilie?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

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

and then the sudden appearance of clothing in the fossil record.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

and there's a difference?

Yes. Theistic evolution is basically evolution with the philosophical (i.e., non-scientific) caveat that God set it up and gives helpful pushes when necessary, but remains entirely undetectable.

Creation by intelligent design is looking for identifiable design traits in what we see around us, such as two things that work together to form a function that cannot have developed separately, and irreducible complexity, and things like that. Sorry this is so vague; if you like, I'll look up a more formal definition and post it - let me know Am slightly brain-dead right now - long day! Since my last post, I've been quite busy with family matters, and am continuing to deal with some serious extended-extended (i.e., sister of a sister-in-law, etc.) family issues of drug addition and post-partum psychosis.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by LCOU

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

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and then the sudden appearance of clothing in the fossil record.

ROTFL!!

I love you guys!!

And thank you, Nurvi-sweetaroo, for your very kind words!

I need to sign off now, I'll be back in the morn to address some more addressy things.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by 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.

[...]

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...

I've seen some evidence for the first sentence of the first scenario, but no evidence for the second: "there is no guiding or initiating force involved".

In fact, since it is a negative sentence, episthemology would say that you cannot find evidence about it: you can prove that no known force is guiding of have initialized the process, but since science is developing passing from one paradigm to another. we cannot prove we know all possible forces and therefore we cannot prove that there's no initializing force.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

All living things change over time. This can be proven with simple life forms in any lab in the world any day of the week. The reason last year’s flu shot is not helping you this year is because the flu virus has evolved. This kind of evolution can be demonstrated in any good lab. It is a fact not a theory.

The only thing a creationist can argue is that more complex life forms (which have much slower life cycles which are unobservable in real time) are somehow exempt from a phenomena that can be demonstrated to be true of those with faster cycles like germs viruses etc.The only problem is there is no evidence that any life form is exempt from this process. There is also a mountain of evidence in the fossil record which shows all kinds of transitional forms of all species of plant and animal life which would support the idea that complex life is not exempt.

The only opposition to evolution comes from people who have a conflicting view of the world based on a religious belief. There is no non-religeous opposition to evolution. That should tell you something.


Remember science is a method, not a belief.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I've seen some evidence for the first sentence of the first scenario, but no evidence for the second: "there is no guiding or initiating force involved".

In fact, since it is a negative sentence, episthemology would say that you cannot find evidence about it: you can prove that no known force is guiding of have initialized the process, but since science is developing passing from one paradigm to another. we cannot prove we know all possible forces and therefore we cannot prove that there's no initializing force.

all right... how about "Evolution is a natural aspect of our universe and any guiding or initiating force is irrelevant or not applicable."

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

all right... how about "Evolution is a natural aspect of our universe and any guiding or initiating force is irrelevant or not applicable."

Okay. I think it describes quite well the evolutionist scenario: it simply ignores the begining question

[hectorberlioz]

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.

There are an incredible amount of problems with the monkey theory. There is no-one to tell the monkey if he's right or wrong (if there was, it would immediately imply intelligence, which would be wrong since this is a theory of randomness), and the chances of the mokey writing "Romeo O Romeo, where art thou", are very slim with any amount of time, and the reason bieng that even if he hit the right keys, it would be something like this "Rpoafgdsg23000faskjmaadfhgdfhtresddhfjsdao" (and probably even more complex), and since he doesnt know what his aim is he cant possibly.

[Jonathan]

Sorry Hector, I don't see your point. Did you read the rest of the post and the follow-up posts?

[edit]

Originally Posted by Hectorberlioz

There are an incredible amount of problems with the monkey theory

Um, it's an analogy, not a theory

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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.

Please refer to data posts in my multi-post essay

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.

I will do anything, anywhere, for Nurvi, who thru hundreds and hundreds of posts has been consistently polite, kind, and thoughtful to me and others, and who has demonstrated over and over a willingness to carefully consider and think thru other people's opinions, even if they're different from hers, and respectfully disagree if she ends up disagreeing, and who when she accidentally said something about what she thought I thought that was wrong, apologized sincerely and gave me soothing "misquoted" balm (cute!!).

Ditto with IRex and Chrys and Fat Middle and hector.

I will do anything on this thread for Jonathan, who in every post here has been polite, kind and thoughtful to me and others, and who has demonstrated on this thread (I'm sure on other threads, too, but I haven't really posted with him much) a willingness to carefully consider and think thru other people's opinions, even if they're different from his, and respectfully disagree if he ends up disagreeing.

Why should I honor your request, when I ask you over and over to stop speaking for me and telling ME what MY thoughts and motives are, and you haven't granted that request or even apologized? Why should I make a one-post summary, when you yourself tell me (wrongly) that I know I can't? I don't honor taunts; I do honor requests made with consideration. Why in the world would you even be interested in any type of post from me, since you've said I'm blinded and deceived (IIRC) on this topic? Why should I take the time to compose a thought-out summary post, when I've already taken hours to compose that multi-post discussion of evidence and you say you don't think any of it is valid? Why?!

Unless you promise to stop speaking for me and apologize for telling me what my own thoughts are and ask me respectfully and kindly to make this summary post, I won't. I would do it for Nurvi or Jonathan or IRex or Chrys or hector or FM, tho.

I cannot and will not grant a request made disrespectfully
...unless I think a greater good is to be achieved by granting it. In this case, I don't think a greater good would be achieved, so I politely and respectfully decline to grant your request.
End of subject, on my side.

[Rían]

Jonathan - I'm looking up some very interesting stuff about bacterial resistance in reference to a fascinating study about frozen bodies that were exhumed and the characteristics of the bacteria found in them. I'm having trouble finding an internet reference, that's what's taking so long! I have a journal ref, but not an internet ref.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Unless you promise to stop speaking for me and apologize for telling me what my own thoughts are and ask me respectfully and kindly to make this summary post, I won't.

I have asked you kindly too - and you won't do it. As for putting words in your mouth - I get those from over two years of discussion on this thread. You just don't like me bringing them up.

I would do it for Nurvi or Jonathan or IRex or Chrys or hector or FM, tho.

I'm not giving you disrespect - or no less respect than you have given to me in some of yoru posts. I am asking for an answerr and the only think you do is tell me to go read your vovoluted posts. I'm sorry - I suppose that basically what you are saying is you don't want to support your beliefs in an easy to read manner. You would rather bury everything in a bunch of mumbo jumbo and not actually state your position clearly.

I cannot and will not bow to disrespect.
End of subject, on my side.

You can think it's disrespect - ti has to do with the subject at hand and how you don't explain your position without bringing evolution or god into the conversation. You may not want to admit it - but it's the truth.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm sorry - I suppose that basically what you are saying is you don't want to support your beliefs in an easy to read manner. You would rather bury everything in a bunch of mumbo jumbo and not actually state your position clearly.

Two more sentences that do NOT represent my thinking - in fact, they represent the exact opposite of my thinking. Again, please stop speaking for my thoughts - you do NOT have my permission, nor do you have the ability to read my mind.

*thinks about Tuor and Fingon*

[jerseydevil]

BTW Rian - I was wondering - are you going to apologize for the rude comments toward me in your posts?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Two more sentences that do NOT represent my thinking - in fact, they represent the exact opposite of my thinking. Again, please stop speaking for my thoughts - you do NOT have my permission, nor do you have the ability to read my mind.

Sorry - just an observation from 2 1/2 years of posting about creationism and evolution with you. Just call it a gift I have.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by 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...

Excellent post, IRex!! I'd like to address it as soon as I can, because I think it is relevant to the topic. Am out of time now ...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Excellent post, IRex!! I'd like to address it as soon as I can, because I think it is relevant to the topic. Am out of time now ...

You mean you won't address my questions?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW Rian - I was wondering - are you going to apologize for the rude comments toward me in your posts?

If you think something I said was rude, then please point out specifics to me, and I will carefully consider it People are very important to me.