How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Still wanting to continue the argument - huh? Whatever. You have your thread to discuss things in the manner you want to discuss them. You can tell Jonathan he can take me off his ignore since he won't see it.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Still wanting to continue the argument - huh? Whatever. You have your thread to discuss things in the manner you want to discuss them. You can tell Jonathan he can take me off his ignore since he won't see it.

here y'are JD

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

here y'are JD

And just leaving.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And just leaving.

wait a minute i'm coming too

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

wait a minute i'm coming too

Care to go to the teacup cafe? or what about the evidence of evolution thread?

[Rían]

-edited-

Anyway, as thread starter, I ask people in this thread to discuss things politely, vigorously, respectfully, accurately, with humor, and with Tolkien references when possible and to NOT claim to know what others think

Originally Posted by Lief

RÃ*an is convinced that God exists and that Christianity is correct, and she is convinced of creationism.

You, sir, don't get to speak for me, either! *smacks Lief with a missing link* I am NOT convinced, altho I have concluded that I think, based on available evidence, that those things are correct.

Originally Posted by Lief

Creationism is to RÃ*an better supported by the available data then evolution is ...

Yes, this is a correct statement of my views.

[jerseydevil]

[edited by azalea -- off topic]

Yes, this is a correct statement of my views.

Well your summary only supports your data for the most part in terms of what you find wrong with evolution. [edited by azalea -- personal comments]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - you did say that if people would look at the evidence logically and rationally - that they would see that creationism is right. That is one of the types of comments you routinely use which to me is an underhanded putdown.

Wow, I can't EVER remember having said that - I'd be very surprised if you found a quote of me saying that!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Wow, I can't EVER remember having said that - I'd be very surprised if you found a quote of me saying that!

Here is one post where you indicate that "sound, rational, empirical reasons" for believing homosexual marriage is wrong. I gues everyone else just doesn't though.

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...716#post292716

"And I don't even want to discuss my "sound, rational, empirical reasons" behind my opinion that homosexual marriage is harmful to society when the deck is stacked against me; why should I?

I take it here one is being illogical if one believes you can still be of worth while believing in evolution.

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...84l#post320784

...creationism says that we're incredibly valuable and beautifully designed beings, while a logical deduction from evolutionism is that we're either of no worth, or of the same worth as, say, a worm And our souls say that this is not true...

Here again - if we would only look at the world logically like you do - we would see that your way is correct....

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...412#post319412
I believe that it is more reasonable to assume MY statement, and in short, for many logical reasons, I believe that the Christian worldview as stated in the Bible is the accurate representation of how the world really is...

This is in the discussion of summary points you made - you linked to it from the first page. I suppose here that if we don't believe this - then we don't really have common-sense....

I found the following common-sense answer - creationists believe that the layering reflects (1) different habitat zones (deep ocean, shallower ocean, tidal zone, shore, lowlands, uplands, etc.), laid down via (2) catastrophic means (a world-wide flood and associated catastrophic activity), also reflecting (3) the sorting processes of water. And because of the different geographic features on the earth, this ordering will be roughly uniform, but does not need to be entirely uniform. IOW, trilobites are on the bottom layer … because they are deep-sea critters!

Here is another statement where you say something is common sense for what you believe -

You MIGHT get some beneficial mutations (even though they’ve never been observed), but you will also get hundreds of times more harmful ones! Mutations are known by the diseases and harmful abnormalities they cause, and there’s a good, common-sense reason for that - observable mutations are destructive, plain and simple.

Here is a real kicker here....

The view of a creationist is so incredibly obvious this is really common sense! – good designers use proven designs for similar functions!

With this last one I found - I really don't think I have to go on.

[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 noticed you deleted out my respnse to YOU!

[Fat middle]

ADMIN NOTE:

Some (loads of) posts have had to be deleted due to the violation of the warning about trolling.

BTW, I'm posting here what a troller is:

"Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait. Generally quite harmless - practices a form of catch and release. Nonetheless, he can upset the delicate ecology of a discussion forum."

I repeat: Asking for a response again and again is trolling, and it's not allowed.

Again: any response to this note will be considered a violation of a warning and subject to possible punishments or whatever.

Now, let's try tto keep on topic.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

ADMIN NOTE:

Some (loads of) posts have had to be deleted due to the violation of the warning about trolling.

BTW, I'm posting here what a troller is:

"Troller is looking for a response...ANY response, and he will chum the waters with complaints, insults, compliments, and inflammatory tidbits hoping that someone...ANYONE, will take the bait. Generally quite harmless - practices a form of catch and release. Nonetheless, he can upset the delicate ecology of a discussion forum."

I repeat: Asking for a response again and again is trolling, and it's not allowed.

Again: any response to this note will be considered a violation of a warning and subject to possible punishments or whatever.

Now, let's try tto keep on topic.

Sorry - that is from flame warriors and is a discription of that not of the process of trolling. I however am NOT a troller nor was I trolling - you just have a problem with me! I fyour going to quote what trolling is - why the hell don't you actually use what is in the ENTMOOT rules - instead of using a damn joke site?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Here is Entmoot's definition of trolling: From Entmoot's rules:

Trolling (posting with the sole intent of causing trouble or insulting),

Um how does this term apply to the situation? Please explain.

[Blackheart]

hrmm... I think I'm going to go back to sleep. Lots of thrashing and moaning with little progress.

But I will note that it seems very odd to me that someone would state something like you can believe in creationism without believeing in a god/creator.

It makes no more sense than saying you can have intelligent desgin without any intelligence...

Which leads to the real meat of the science vs philosophy problem. Any statement that contains untestable (falsifiable by empirical means) elements can't be scientific. Period.

Now whatever relative worth you want to assign to philosophy (which includes theology) over sceince is up to you, but if I had MY 'druthers, I'd pick the one based on empirical methods if I wanted to apply it to something observable. Like problems in the common space we usually refer to as reality, for instance.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

hrmm... I think I'm going to go back to sleep. Lots of thrashing and moaning with little progress.

Well as the saying goes - same old **** just a different day. This has been going on for 2 1/2 years - same old argument over and over again. I tried to get another thread going that talked about the scientific evidence of evolution - since this one is about evidence for creationism and my thread was closed. Seems free expression is only fought for when certain other people want it. Not surprising though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

Here is Entmoot's definition of trolling: From Entmoot's rules:
Um how does this term apply to the situation? Please explain.

Well not only that but he has one problem with using that definition also - I'm not looking for ANY response nor from JUST ANYONE. I am asking Rian a particular question that deals with the topic at hand. I didn't know there was a damn problem with asking a ON TOPIC question all of a sudden.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I tried to get another thread going that talked about the scientific evidence of evolution -

That would be a really big thread

There's a lot of evidence for evolution, most of it well known, at least the basics.

What is bothersome is that even if there are gaps in the evidence, there's still no credible evidence supporting a competing scientific theory.

So it's doubly bothersome when someone proposes a theory that is based soley on a gap in the evidence, which doesn't explain all the evidence, is often contradicted by evidence from OTHER fields of science, and contains completely untestable statements, and then insists that it is a scientific theory worthy of equal consideration. Not to mention ignoring other testable theories on why gaps in the evidence might exist.

It's one thing to throw up those kinds of objections from a philosophical point of view. That's acceptable, though rather pointless unless you are trying to illustrate epistomological issues...

But to insist that you are doing so from a scientific point of view is only doing one thing. Illustrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

But I will note that it seems very odd to me that someone would state something like you can believe in creationism without believeing in a god/creator.

Yes, that certainly seems odd, and apparently you misunderstood me and/or missed by clarifying post

I said that if I was NOT a Christian, and I thought the evidence supported creationism (in the larger sense of intelligent design), then I wouldn't think that the God of the Bible was in charge. I would think whatever god/superintelligence I happened to believe in was in charge.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

So it's doubly bothersome when someone proposes a theory that is based soley on a gap in the evidence, which doesn't explain all the evidence, is often contradicted by evidence from OTHER fields of science, and contains completely untestable statements, and then insists that it is a scientific theory worthy of equal consideration.

Yes, that would be "bothersome" indeed I'm not aware of anyone here having done that

"when someone proposes a theory that is based soley on a gap in the evidence" - reminds me of punctuated equilibrium! Don't you think that applies?

[Rían]

(placeholder post)