How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You mean you won't address my questions?

I've given you the terms under which I will be glad to addess your question, the main one being to choose to not exercise your "gift" of mind-reading (IOW, stop speaking for me )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've given you the terms under which I will be glad to addess your question, the main one being to choose to not exercise your "gift" of mind-reading (IOW, stop speaking for me )

I'll stop speaking for you - when you stop inticating it's the truth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

If you can't see where you were - then I guess it doesn't much matter to you then. You know the little digs you threw into your posts the last several days and before that were directed at me. I fyou wish to deny it - that's up to you.

[Jonathan]

Would you please drop it and just let it be?

I'd like to get more in-depth about how life can have begun without the presence of a god, through prebiotic and surprisingly simple chemical reactions (ie. if anyone can be bothered with more biochemistry ). However it's late so I'll have to post this another day, but I'd very much like to hear the creationists' comments on the subject.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Would you please drop it and just let it be?

Hey - you have me on ignore - it shouldn't matter to you what I say here.

[Fat middle]

Well, I think it's time to get on topic and stop playing litle games. One has the right to choose which posts he wants to respond to...

asking for a reponse over and over is just annoying, distressfull, confussing and tiresome, so please have an end with it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Well, I think it's time to get on topic and stop playing litle games. One has the right to choose which posts he wants to respond to...

I'm not playing little games - I've been asking rian a question she refuses to answer.

asking for a reponse over and over is just annoying, distressfull, confussing and tiresome, so please have an end with it.

Well I suppose when she posts what I request. Don't I have a right to ask a question?

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I suppose when she posts what I request. Don't I have a right to ask a question?

Nope, you don't have the right to ask it again and again. That's trolling and it's not allowed here.

Please, this is my last word on this so don't respond to this post or it'd be considered more trolling.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Nope, you don't have the right to ask it again and again. That's trolling and it's not allowed here.

Please, this is my last word on this so don't respond to this post or it'd be considered more trolling.

I didn't think asking a question was considered trolling actually. There many things in our conversation besides just me asking that question. You didn't have any problems with it the last couple of days where you actually responded to things I was saying. So now you have a problem with my posts?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I'd like to get more in-depth about how life can have begun without the presence of a god, through prebiotic and surprisingly simple chemical reactions (ie. if anyone can be bothered with more biochemistry ).

I"m sorry, I don't quite understand your wording - do you mean you'd like to give us a brief discussion on the topic? If so, I'd like to hear it I took organic and inorganic chem at uni, but that's it.

There's a very interesting book out by a biochemist called Darwin's Black Box, where he discusses biochemical issues in relation to evolution.

However it's late so I'll have to post this another day, but I'd very much like to hear the creationists' comments on the subject.

That's not my background, but I could try to dig up comments from scientists on what you bring up, and I"m always interested in learning!

[jerseydevil]

I will let Rian continue to freely post in this thread about the evidence of creationism and restrict all talk on evolution. I have started a new thread called "Evidence for Evolution and Against Creationism" I invite everyone who wishes to post about supporting evidence for evolution and why creationism is not supported by science to post there. My feeling is that this thread and many others have become one sided discussions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What IR has said is what I was referring to. However, Rian is pretty much demanding evidence beyond doubt about evolution. So if that's what she is asking - then I'm asking you and her for evidence beyond a doubt about creationism and god.

Well, I have just a couple things to say in answer to this. First, creationism is separate from belief about God. You can be wrong about creationism and right about God. To RÃ*an they are separate issues, and to me they are also. I am convinced that God exists and that Christianity is correct, however I am not convinced of creationism. RÃ*an is convinced that God exists and that Christianity is correct, and she is convinced of creationism. Creationism is to RÃ*an better supported by the available data then evolution is, and to me . . . I have not studied the evidence sufficiently to form a strong opinion. I have studied the Bible enough to know that trusting the Bible and believing Creationism don't have to go together.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As IR said and which is my problem when discussin creationism with you and Rian and others is that we are requesting... "Simply a reliable amount of verification (in the same way we have for say gravity or the existance of the planets or the moon). But with creationism you cant by definition have basic "proof" possibilities....in order to embrace creationism you need to be ok with giving no evidence AND you need to ignore reams and reams of evidence that go against your religious notions. Hard to do."

I disagree. It seems insane to me to toss out the reams and reams of evidence that exist on creationist websites. I also have met a person who studied biology intently and decided creationism was correct and evolution wrong entirely from his own studies, uninfluenced by Christianity.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for evidence of god, archeology and writings aren't going to work. I can present things from ancient Rome - does that mean that Zeus was real?

Depends what you bring . Archaeology is used as a prime source in the writing of our history books. If you can find large amounts of archaeological evidence that indicates the events of the Silmarillion took place, you'd find the Silmarillion suddenly being taken seriously as a history book. Manuscripts from the ancient past also are used for the chronicling of history. If one manuscript says, "Zeus is alive!" you don't have to believe it any more then you believe me when I say, "Jesus is alive!" However, there can be supporting evidences that indicate the truth of what is said. For example, if a manuscript says, "Zeus is alive! He appeared in the sky, lowered his sword on the Visigoths and destroying 40,000 of them!", and then you find manuscripts from the Visigoths that say, "The God of the Romans appeared in the air, brought down his sword on us, and killed many," then suddenly you have some evidence that the first document was correct. Even the single first document from the Romans might be sufficient to get a good historian seriously pondering. However, first of all one has to see how close the author was to the events described. If he was long enough after those early manuscripts, then there would have been time for legend to creep into his records, sullying his account (though the verification still makes a great deal of difference).

The Bible is accepted by most historians as largely historically accurate. It has been coroborated with the accounts of other ancient people. Therefore this "Silmarillion" is accepted as more then some book of myths. Indeed, many historians are amazed at its accuracy and wistful that the miracles which "sully" its account did not exist, for the Bible also puts a very human face on its greatest heroes, showing them in their many weaknesses and failings as well as their successes. Solomon and King David would be key examples, them being the great kings of Israelite history. However, in reality there aren't any characters in the scripture that I know of who are completely perfect. All of them are flawed in their various ways. Moses with cowardice, and the disciples of Jesus with countless flaws. They are portrayed in the scriptures as blunderers, rarely understanding anything Jesus said, rarely making correct judgments about anyone or anything. It is in the Book of Acts that suddenly we see them transformed from people of cowardice and small understanding to giants of faith, men whom we know from history were almost all martyred for their beliefs.

Anyhow, if you say, "there is as much evidence for the Bible as for the Silmarillion," you have to discard all ancient history as currently accepted as useless. There is definite truth in the Biblical accounts that is resoundingly accepted by scholars, including nonChristian scholars.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, I have just a couple things to say in answer to this. First, creationism is separate from belief about God. You can be wrong about creationism and right about God. To RÃ*an they are separate issues, and to me they are also. I am convinced that God exists and that Christianity is correct, however I am not convinced of creationism. RÃ*an is convinced that God exists and that Christianity is correct, and she is convinced of creationism.

you can believe in god and evolution, but you can not believe in creationism without believing in god

i think that is what JD is trying to say, please shout at me if i am wrong

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

you can believe in god and evolution, but you can not believe in creationism without believing in god

i think that is what JD is trying to say, please shout at me if i am wrong

That is exactly what I am saying. In order to believe in Creationism you need to believe in god - which is not provable under any scientific means. Therefore creationism should be judged on it's own merits scientifically - and it can't without thowing out half the evidence which contradicts it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I will let Rian continue to freely post in this thread about the evidence of creationism and restrict all talk on evolution.

It is completely untrue that I "restrict all talk on evolution". Most of my last few posts have been discussing evolution! How in the world can you say that?

I think the thread title change was a good idea, and I look forward to posting in both threads, as there are some things about creationism that I think are NOT well supported by the data.

[Nurvingiel]

Why not just take for and against out of the title, and merge the two threads?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It is completely untrue that I "restrict all talk on evolution". Most of my last few posts have been discussing evolution! How in the world can you say that?

You basically want to control what is talked about here and be the center of the discussion here.

I think the thread title change was a good idea, and I look forward to posting in both threads, as there are some things about creationism that I think are NOT well supported by the data.

You are free to discuss in my thread as long as you leave religion at the door when you do and don't post why evolution is not right or why creationism is correct.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why not just take for and against out of the title, and merge the two threads?

Because - they have two different purposes and my thread is ONLY to discuss SCIENTIFIC evidence WHY evolution is supported and the SCIENTIFIC evidence on why creationism is not. I see no reason to post in this thread when we should be talking about science - not relgion or beliefs.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You basically want to control what is talked about here and be the center of the discussion here.

You are wrong, and you have no right or authority to speak about what my motives and thoughts and desires are You cannot read my mind.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why not just take for and against out of the title, and merge the two threads?

I think the two threads are a good idea. There's lots of scientific info in both arenas, as well as philosophical stuff, too (in BOTH arenas!) It will be easier to keep them separate, I think.