How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Insidious Rex]

This is the one. Its as neutral as you make it. Any thread you make on the topic will recieve the same scorn you realize of course. We have been known to break out into a evolution argument in the middle of a thread on marriage and the Fourth of July.

So make sure you have your asbetos long johns on but dont be afraid to dive in with the evidence you have.

It doesn't really make a dif to me one way or the other, someone else suggested this thread as a better place for the discussion. I'm just making myself available for target practice

[brownjenkins]

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being, implying that if god can create "x" object right now (even if it was something as small as a pebble), he could have created us long ago

this is why evolution is a theory... we see evolution on a small scale and imply that it occured on a larger scale... the implication may not be totally correct... but there is at least evidence that evolution (as in minor change from offspring to offspring) can and does happen in the real world

are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power or influence?

[brownjenkins]

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being, implying that if god can create "x" object right now (even if it was something as small as a pebble), he could have created us long ago

this is why evolution is a theory... we see evolution on a small scale and imply that it occured on a larger scale... the implication may not be totally correct... but there is at least evidence that evolution (as in minor change from offspring to offspring) can and does happen in the real world

are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power or influence?

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Spock

personally I side with the chimps

er... which side is that then?

bring back philosophy i say.

Truth, logic, morality, ethics, semantics, mathematics and THE right vehicle to examine both creationism and evolutionism.

personally it intrigues me that both science and religion work from a rigid and structured approach .. i find it no less true that science needs things to fit into it's strictures and models of established thought than religion does -

at core, although obviously science moves on.

But whither the inexplorable march of Science? To godhood? Would the evolutionists then be proved wrong, by their own hand?


I find the motives behind attempting to erode evolutionism interesting though, is it a far-fetched or very valid response to the question above? or more likely fear of the march of science towards their own human made creationism: thus creationism wins by a length ridden by the science lobby.



EDIT: blimey both evolution and creationism is happening fast in this thread ... there are already 4 or 5 new posts since i started reading and just posted: if we are a microcosm of the pace of change or religious angst ...

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Spock

personally I side with the chimps

er... which side is that then?

bring back philosophy i say.

Truth, logic, morality, ethics, semantics, mathematics and THE right vehicle to examine both creationism and evolutionism.

personally it intrigues me that both science and religion work from a rigid and structured approach .. i find it no less true that science needs things to fit into it's strictures and models of established thought than religion does -

at core, although obviously science moves on.

But whither the inexplorable march of Science? To godhood? Would the evolutionists then be proved wrong, by their own hand?


I find the motives behind attempting to erode evolutionism interesting though, is it a far-fetched or very valid response to the question above? or more likely fear of the march of science towards their own human made creationism: thus creationism wins by a length ridden by the science lobby.



EDIT: blimey both evolution and creationism is happening fast in this thread ... there are already 4 or 5 new posts since i started reading and just posted: if we are a microcosm of the pace of change or religious angst ...

I'd prefer to take questions 'cause...well...where does one start

[Spock]

OK, I think right here is the perfect place to place your target. I'll note it for the other posters. Good luck and don't forget your helmet.

[HOBBIT]

IR has nailed it.

This would definitely be "Tactic III"


Rian - I read the first several pages of that link and then skimmed the rest. While not harmful - the proposed things are unnecessary and ridiculous.

Hey lets put disclaimers on sciene books that gravity is just a theory. Lets have an official come into the classroom and tell the students that gravity is just a theory and that it could be wrong and that you should not believe it flat out.



A theory does not mean "best guess." It is more than that. And theories ARE always being changed when new evidence and new research comes into play.


All those additions and changes really insults everyone involved.

[HOBBIT]

IR has nailed it.

This would definitely be "Tactic III"


Rian - I read the first several pages of that link and then skimmed the rest. While not harmful - the proposed things are unnecessary and ridiculous.

Hey lets put disclaimers on sciene books that gravity is just a theory. Lets have an official come into the classroom and tell the students that gravity is just a theory and that it could be wrong and that you should not believe it flat out.



A theory does not mean "best guess." It is more than that. And theories ARE always being changed when new evidence and new research comes into play.


All those additions and changes really insults everyone involved.

[Insidious Rex]

Questions? well... evidence comes to mind...

[Spock]

PLEASE NOTE*****Acran Mern

Acran Mern will be taking questions and rebutting in the following forum to make it easier and flowing. = Evidence for Creationism

[Spock]

PLEASE NOTE*****Acran Mern

Acran Mern will be taking questions and rebutting in the following forum to make it easier and flowing. = Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

I see you found the other thread. Now we decide whether to merge or not.

nah... i vote for free-form discussion... splits and merges never help true converstion emerge

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

I see you found the other thread. Now we decide whether to merge or not.

nah... i vote for free-form discussion... splits and merges never help true converstion emerge

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

PLEASE NOTE*****Acran Mern

Acran Mern will be taking questions and rebutting in the following forum to make it easier and flowing. = Evidence for Creationism

snap!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

PLEASE NOTE*****Acran Mern

Acran Mern will be taking questions and rebutting in the following forum to make it easier and flowing. = Evidence for Creationism

snap!

[Spock]

gets mending tape and rushes to brownjenkins aid

[Spock]

gets mending tape and rushes to brownjenkins aid

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being, implying that if god can create "x" object right now (even if it was something as small as a pebble), he could have created us long ago

this is why evolution is a theory... we see evolution on a small scale and imply that it occured on a larger scale... the implication may not be totally correct... but there is at least evidence that evolution (as in minor change from offspring to offspring) can and does happen in the real world

are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power or influence?

I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that we have observed into another kind of animal. I do not deny that there can be slight changes _within_ a kind. However, I don't believe that that necessarily means they can change from one kind to another (fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale) This we do not see in the present (your use of the term real life doesn't quite work, sorry), nor do we see it in the fossil record. Evolutionists _assume_ that this can happen because they see smaller things like height differences, fur or plumage coloring, limb length, tooth shape.