How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so it is based on the writings in the bible as opposed to any geological evidence?

that is perfectly acceptable, but once again, it is not science

There you go again.
No, not as opposed to, along with. The geological evidence I'm presented with supports the Biblical account of the history of the world. Therefore I do not find conflict between the two.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

back when they were getting ready to walk on the moon they had supossed that the earth was millions years old and by using those numbers they calculated that the silt collected on the moon would be several feet deep, they then developed a boot that would act like a snow shoe so the astronauts wouldn't sink, when they actually got to the moon the silt was about a few inches indicating that the earth is a lot younger than they had supposed

Actually, they'd already figured that out before they got there, but thanks anyway
There are plenty of other things. For instance, the existence of comets. At the rate at which they burn off, they would have been planets several hundred years ago and could not have fallen into the orbits they now occupy. The Old-Earth explanation of this is ... well ... hardly more scientific than believing that God put them there.

Wouldn't shake what I believe, personally. But it would make that argument harder to make. Why, do you happen to have one?

Wouldn't shake what I believe, personally. But it would make that argument harder to make. Why, do you happen to have one?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Wouldn't shake what I believe, personally. But it would make that argument harder to make. Why, do you happen to have one?

i was just seeing if there was a point in me continuing

i do appreciate your beliefs, i hope you feel the same

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Wouldn't shake what I believe, personally. But it would make that argument harder to make. Why, do you happen to have one?

i was just seeing if there was a point in me continuing

i do appreciate your beliefs, i hope you feel the same

Now, if you had evidence that God didn't exist, or that something in the Bible was false, that'd be cause for some soul-searching...but another piece to the puzzle that you expect to find...no, not so much

Now, if you had evidence that God didn't exist, or that something in the Bible was false, that'd be cause for some soul-searching...but another piece to the puzzle that you expect to find...no, not so much

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, I'm maintaining that before the universe was created, there was no time. The direct quote is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This means to me that this is the beginning of time. I know that it is a difficult subject to grasp but it is fairly well-accepted in the scientific community that time is just as integral a part of our universe as space. Therefore, if God created time, there wouldn't have to be a point where he did not exist, or a time period where he was existing before creating the universe.

we use time to define our universe... but it is a term we have invented and defined to express what we see... it is not a thing in and of itself... so you are really not answering the question at all

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I think BB raises an interesting point here. There's currently no place in schools - at least there wasn't in my school - for the study of philosophy. ... If they know how to come to their own conclusions on these things, it matters less what the prejudices of their teachers are on any topic.

Great point!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I think BB raises an interesting point here. There's currently no place in schools - at least there wasn't in my school - for the study of philosophy. ... If they know how to come to their own conclusions on these things, it matters less what the prejudices of their teachers are on any topic.

Great point!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There you go again.
No, not as opposed to, along with. The geological evidence I'm presented with supports the Biblical account of the history of the world. Therefore I do not find conflict between the two.

in the individual perception is reality... all i can ask is that you consider all the alternatives equally

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

no, not so much

i assumed as much, but thanks for the discussion anyway... i'm sure we will have more

on philosophy... a nice bit on perception

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

no, not so much

i assumed as much, but thanks for the discussion anyway... i'm sure we will have more

on philosophy... a nice bit on perception

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

bring back philosophy i say.

Me, too! (as far as training how to analyze)

I find the motives behind attempting to erode evolutionism interesting though, is it a far-fetched or very valid response to the question above?

Just as I find the motives behind attempting to prop up evolutionism (beyond what the data can and does indicate) interesting!! I think it's a gut reaction to the fear of the existence of any being(s) more powerful than we are, esp. if that being has moral authority.

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 ...

Yes, it's quite an emotional topic, which is interesting in itself - why is it?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

bring back philosophy i say.

Me, too! (as far as training how to analyze)

I find the motives behind attempting to erode evolutionism interesting though, is it a far-fetched or very valid response to the question above?

Just as I find the motives behind attempting to prop up evolutionism (beyond what the data can and does indicate) interesting!! I think it's a gut reaction to the fear of the existence of any being(s) more powerful than we are, esp. if that being has moral authority.

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 ...

Yes, it's quite an emotional topic, which is interesting in itself - why is it?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in the individual perception is reality... all i can ask is that you consider all the alternatives equally

so you think we should consider the alien theory on equal footing with theorys that actually have scientific evidence?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what if there was one?

Then I, personally, would be willling to give evolution another look. To me, either one could be true; however, I've just analyzed the actual, real data and decided that creationism is more likely, altho neither one is proveable because we're talking about historical-type theories here.

That information wouldn't change my view that the Christian worldview is the one that is closest to actuality, tho, because that's based on different evidence.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what if there was one?

Then I, personally, would be willling to give evolution another look. To me, either one could be true; however, I've just analyzed the actual, real data and decided that creationism is more likely, altho neither one is proveable because we're talking about historical-type theories here.

That information wouldn't change my view that the Christian worldview is the one that is closest to actuality, tho, because that's based on different evidence.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

this is interesting...

current definition...

proposed change...

they do not sound terribly different, but i find it interesting that he lost the phrases "adhere to strict empirical standards" and "a healthy skeptical perspective" ...

No, NO! They did NOT take out those phrases - they're still there. Look at page 3 again