How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What was that about "entmoot isnt a country stupid"? I recall being told that several times.

Oh you migh want to demonstrate where you were called stupid. because I don't call people stupid. Can you provide a link to one of my posts which shows this?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

More on IRex' post - in option 1, "Science Only: Evolution is a natural aspect of our universe and there is no guiding or initiating force involved."

See, again, I think the problem here is the use of the word "evolution". People mean so many different things by that word. When you say "evolution" in this context, what exactly do you mean?

Im just taking about the natural process by which living organisms change through the use of genetics and the influence of environment. What is considered classic evolutionary theory.

And another thing - what do you mean by "initiating force"? If it's what I think you mean, then wouldn't that be outside the realm of science?

i think we later corrected that first line to read something like "...and any guiding or initiating force is irrelevant or not applicable." since a negative cant be proven. and in that way whatever that force is, if it exists or not doesnt matter in the first scenario.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

...Why do we have to think that the earth's beginnings had to be complicated? And why do most atheists look at creationism as "cheap, convenient, magical"?...

let's ignore christian creation for one minute, to other religions christianity is as different as one to the other, and so a taoist, for instance, might look at christianity with the view that it is wierd and strange, just as one christian might look at shinto, or taoism, or any other religion, and say it is wierd or strange.

now, to address the "magical" aspect of creationism, without addressing christianity:

Brahman, the one who is many, had brought forth the world upon the great turtle, Andu, and thus the four elephants were set to support the world, North, South, East and West. It came to pass that the Dragon see the world within and grew envious of the land for the Gods to populate, and desired to have it for Himself. He came down into within, and claimed the world for his own. On seeing the Dragon attempting to wrest the world from those who wished to fill it with joy and light, Shiva, the Destroyer, came forth, and slew the Dragon in a great battle. Brahma came forth and set the body of the Dragon to the centre of the world, to support the skies and the heavens, and he hallowed the scales which fell from the Dragon. Vishnu, the Creator, came forth, and taking the scales, which had been hallowed by Brahma, cast them to the four winds, each set to land upon a different part of the world, and from there to bring forth many lives suited to the realms which they had been set in. Then Brahma brought forth Men, and Vishnu brought forth Women, and they were set to live in the realms beneath the body of the Dragon, which Brahma had cast to stone mountains, Vishnu brought forth the waters of the Elephants, and created, with Brahma, the rivers and seas in great hollows in the Earth, which had been thrust by Shiva. The peoples set to themselves the lands around the Indus River, and came forth to become a great peoples, peopling the world, bringing joy to Andu.

[hectorberlioz]

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

I wouldnt expect there to be ...after all, the theory of evolution is the ultimate alternative theory next to that of creation. Both are the epitome of something: creationism for creation through a supernatural bieng (not all creationists believe in the christian God) and all other theories like it are merely branches, and evolution for our existence through pure chance of arrangement of material over time, and any variations are merely branches
(The theory of wether evolution progressed slowly, or in big sporadic leaps...or a combination of both).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I wouldnt expect there to be ...after all, the theory of evolution is the ultimate alternative theory next to that of creation. Both are the epitome of something: creationism for creation through a supernatural bieng (not all creationists believe in the christian God) and all other theories like it are merely branches, and evolution for our existence through pure chance of arrangement of material over time, and any variations are merely branches
(The theory of wether evolution progressed slowly, or in big sporadic leaps...or a combination of both).

Religion has no basis in scientific theory. So please support your claim scientifically only without dragging relgigion, god the bible and without try to support yoru calim by pointing out flaws in Evolution - something I have asked rian to do numerous tiumes but she is obviously unable to. Let's see if you can.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Allow me

Go right ahead, sir :-D

I look at Science (not the same as Evolution) as something that had to exist as a result of our existing; ... and science as we all know, has to do with the study of.

I so agree with this! In one sense, I don't care HOW we got here! HOWEVER we got here, the world is amazing! And scientific methods help us know more about the world.

One thing that is frustrating to me about the debate between evolution/creation is that resources are being wasted. I mean, BOTH evolution and creation deal with a question that we will NEVER know the answer to; namely, how did we get here as we currently see ourselves? (well, let me be a bit more exact - if classic evolution (i.e., non-directed) is correct, then we will NEVER know for sure because when we die, we'll just go *poof*! If creationism is correct, we WILL know for sure how we got here!)

I think science, back in the time before evolution, was much more pure and, well, scientific. It was based upon observation, and its goal was to find things out about things that can be found out about! (what wording! ) Now it seems that a lot of time is being wasted by arguments about things that CANNOT be found out about; namely, how we got here.

I don't know if I'm expressing this well - do you guys follow what I'm saying?

[jerseydevil]

I still would like rian to post a single post in here about her scientific evidence which supports creationism without bringing god, the bible, reglion or evolution in the equation. Basically just a straight forward post on the evidence for creationism. Contrary to what FM told me in a PM - she has not done this anywhere in the board. All her examples mention god, religion or attack evolution to back up her claims.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well if we assume creation word for word as stated in the bible then animals never evolved. They just came into being in whole form. and therefore all the evolutionary mechanisms we have found through the course of scientific study and observation must be an illusion.

no no no - at least if you're talking about microevolution.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

let's ignore christian creation for one minute, to other religions christianity is as different as one to the other, and so a taoist, for instance, might look at christianity with the view that it is wierd and strange, just as one christian might look at shinto, or taoism, or any other religion, and say it is wierd or strange.

now, to address the "magical" aspect of creationism, without addressing christianity:

Brahman, the one who is many, had brought forth the world upon the great turtle, Andu, and thus the four elephants were set to support the world, North, South, East and West. It came to pass that the Dragon see the world within and grew envious of the land for the Gods to populate, and desired to have it for Himself. He came down into within, and claimed the world for his own. On seeing the Dragon attempting to wrest the world from those who wished to fill it with joy and light, Shiva, the Destroyer, came forth, and slew the Dragon in a great battle. Brahma came forth and set the body of the Dragon to the centre of the world, to support the skies and the heavens, and he hallowed the scales which fell from the Dragon. Vishnu, the Creator, came forth, and taking the scales, which had been hallowed by Brahma, cast them to the four winds, each set to land upon a different part of the world, and from there to bring forth many lives suited to the realms which they had been set in. Then Brahma brought forth Men, and Vishnu brought forth Women, and they were set to live in the realms beneath the body of the Dragon, which Brahma had cast to stone mountains, Vishnu brought forth the waters of the Elephants, and created, with Brahma, the rivers and seas in great hollows in the Earth, which had been thrust by Shiva. The peoples set to themselves the lands around the Indus River, and came forth to become a great peoples, peopling the world, bringing joy to Andu.

Interesting, Chrys.

In 'Mere Christianity' C.S. Lewis explains the theory of Dualism, and that is: two "gods", one good, and one evil and they are constantly at war. This theory, Imo, was presented to explain why good things happen to good people...etc.
The catch, Lewis writes, is that the evil bieng wants power and everything else that is evil, for a purpose...people are bad for a reason, and their actions and desires are an Excess of things that are good. Money is good, but having alot of it causes unhappiness. So the evil bieng must have had an origin, either from the good bieng, or from another higher bieng. And so Dualism logically just doesn't seem to be likely.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

One thing that is frustrating to me about the debate between evolution/creation is that resources are being wasted. I mean, BOTH evolution and creation deal with a question that we will NEVER know the answer to; namely, how did we get here as we currently see ourselves? (well, let me be a bit more exact - if classic evolution (i.e., non-directed) is correct, then we will NEVER know for sure because when we die, we'll just go *poof*! If creationism is correct, we WILL know for sure how we got here!)

Contrary to your opinion Rian - the search for knowledge and understanding is NEVER a waste. And as for saying we will never know the answer - that isn't necessarily true at all. They could have said we would never know for a fact if the earth revolved around the sun. Well that was true - until we had the capibility to send rockets into space that is. You have no idea what the future holds as the people in the past didn't.

I think science, back in the time before evolution, was much more pure and, well, scientific. It was based upon observation, and its goal was to find things out about things that can be found out about! (what wording! ) Now it seems that a lot of time is being wasted by arguments about things that CANNOT be found out about; namely, how we got here.

What are you talking about? Capirnicus come to mind or Galileo? They couldn't prove things they were discovering. it was hypothesis about the evidence they found that indicated to them that the sun was the center of the solar system - not as religion believed it with earth at the center.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Religion has no basis in scientific theory. So please support your claim scientifically only without dragging relgigion, god the bible and without try to support yoru calim by pointing out flaws in Evolution - something I have asked rian to do numerous tiumes but she is obviously unable to. Let's see if you can.

Since when do I have to write a book to express myself?
And what the hell are you asking me to do? I pointed to flaws in evolution because I saw them, and that gives creationism more credit (since they are opposing), and I'm sure Rian was doinf the same. You're right, RELIGION has NO scientific theory, but CREATIONISM does. Religion is NOT God, religion was not created by God. You're understandinf og the world Religion is obviously wacked (go look it up!), and I have to go now...
Sorry, no time to finish this post! Adieu! (and jd, no offense meant to you, but really! you replied to the wrong post.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I still would like rian to post a single post in here about her scientific evidence which supports creationism without bringing god, the bible, reglion or evolution in the equation. Basically just a straight forward post on the evidence for creationism. Contrary to what FM told me in a PM - she has not done this anywhere in the board. All her examples mention god, religion or attack evolution to back up her claims.

I've given you my conditions under which I would be happy to do this, JD [EDITED] I don't think it's right or fair for you to say I think something.

edited by azalea -- personal comments unrelated to the thread topic

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Since when do I have to write a book to express myself?
And what the hell are you asking me to do? I pointed to flaws in evolution because I saw them, and that gives creationism more credit (since they are opposing), and I'm sure Rian was doinf the same.

Scientific study does not allow for you to support a theory simply by basing your opinions on the flaws of another. You need to support your theory in scientific evidence and be restricted to what you are trying to prove.

You're right, RELIGION has NO scientific theory, but CREATIONISM does. Religion is NOT God, religion was not created by God. You're understandinf og the world Religion is obviously wacked (go look it up!), and I have to go now...
Sorry, no time to finish this post! Adieu! (and jd, no offense meant to you, but really! you replied to the wrong post.)

MY understanding of religion is whacked? Please let me know where I said that religion IS god? YOu will find nothing in my posts that say that. I just said that you have to leave god, religion and the bible out of any pure scientific argument to support creationism - which you can't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've given you my conditions under which I would be happy to do this, JD The most important condition is that you would promise to stop saying what YOU think I think. You're just plain wrong most of the time, and you can't read my mind, and I don't think it's right or fair for you to say I think something.

So says the person who claims i call her stupid and a liar? BTW - will I get a apology for the underhanded things you said to me in your posts - which you KNOW you said. Or is this just a one sided thing that you wish for?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Interesting, Chrys.

i'm sure that it can now be seen why i could not possibly believe that creationism could be true, from my worldview/religion/whatever
that myth is the creation in most hindu and buddhist sects,
and it shows creationism as basically magic, so, um, yeah...

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

In 'Mere Christianity' C.S. Lewis explains the theory of Dualism, and that is: two "gods", one good, and one evil and they are constantly at war. This theory, Imo, was presented to explain why good things happen to good people...etc.
The catch, Lewis writes, is that the evil bieng wants power and everything else that is evil, for a purpose...people are bad for a reason, and their actions and desires are an Excess of things that are good. Money is good, but having alot of it causes unhappiness. So the evil bieng must have had an origin, either from the good bieng, or from another higher bieng. And so Dualism logically just doesn't seem to be likely.

the hindu gods don't have dualism each of the gods, brahma, vishnu, shiva, ganesh, kalimar, rajiput and all the others, they all had good and bad aspects, and even the Dragon was not wholly evil, he just grew envious of what the Gods had, and what the Gods were bringing forth

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think science, back in the time before evolution, was much more pure and, well, scientific. It was based upon observation, and its goal was to find things out about things that can be found out about! (what wording! ) Now it seems that a lot of time is being wasted by arguments about things that CANNOT be found out about; namely, how we got here.

I don't agree. I believe science hasn't changed much at all. Well, in the ancient Greek times, theories and hypotheses were sufficient for the scientists but later on, during the age of enlightment in particular, science became a lot more based on evidence and it has been like that ever since.

Anyway I don't think science is wasted at all about things that can't be found out. To the contrary, with new technically advanced tools we can observe even more in the world. I don't think it's impossible to find out how life began/evolved. I think the answer is out there and that it can be found, we just need to look in the right places and deepen our understanding of the world around us.
I also don't think science has become less scientific. Maybe it was in ancient Greece. It's not today.

[Rían]

But how can we KNOW what happened billions of years ago? It HAS to be an extrapolation, doesn't it? How can it NOT be an extrapolation?

[Jonathan]

The world is like a photoalbum - the longer you go back, the grainier the photos get. If we go just a short time back, we have colourful and detailed pics. If we go back a thousand years, the colour's are gone. If we go back a billion years, there are blobs big as footballs in the photos but you can still make out things, especially if you have the right tools.

We can look back billions of years ago and we can understand what we're seeing if we develop methods for it. We can compensate for and tackle the problem with extrapolation.

[Fat middle]

ADMIN NOTE: Thread closed for cleaning up.

This topic nor the facts currently being addressed are to be discussed in open forum till the staff decides on their judgement.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Administrative Note- This thread along with the "Evolution" thread is now open. They are now titled accordingly and open for discussion. All members are welcome and incouraged to post. Please remember that not everyone shares your views and opinions, so we ask that you debate responsibly, and stay on topic. Discussion of Creationism and Evolution will be discussed in their designated threads and will not enter the others.

Any violations of Entmoot's posting policies will be answered with warnings, permanent closure of the threads, or possible banning.

If you have any questions regarding Entmoot's rules or moderation, please feel free to contact us by email or private message.

Thank you.