How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Nurvingiel]

This thread needs a bump incase we want to continue the O/T discussion from the GLB thread...

Here's an interesting point... IIRC, micro-evolution fits in both Creationist theories and Evolutionist theories.

Another interesting point: Evolutionists argue with each other on the fine points of the theory and so do Creationists.

I bet Ri has a good explanation of Intelligent Design somewhere, so I'll unearth it... (otherwise, care to re-iterate?)

Personally, I like Evolutionism theories to try to explain our origins. Though Creationism theories are also good, I feel that ultimately, they are too easy of an answer. (Though, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the theory.....)


There. That should revitalize the discussion.

EDIT:
(edit moved to new post)

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To your last sentence - he certainly would if he read your post.

To the rest - no response needed, since there is nothing but insults, prejudice and stereotyping (as well as atrocious spelling! ), which deserve no response.

I will be glad to respond to considerate, thoughtful posts, like Count's, if you come up with some

I cannot see any intentional insults here. If I said youre a bad speller then maybe. But I cannot understand what is so insulting about Charles Darwin and how he was treated in the 19th century. Please elaborate. Also, if I had called you a witch, or one who does not know how to read, that would qualify as an insult. Ill do the best I can to spell everything properly for you, so as to not be insulted by your criticisms. Also, was creationism not debated by Galileo in his time, and was he not threatened with burning if he did not accept excommunication? I fail to see how this subject is not worthy of a response.

[brownjenkins]

the whole problem with ID, and why it is not science, is because it depends upon a completely fabricated cause... "a creator"

ID tries to get around this by saying "we don't define who the creator is"... but this doesn't matter, as the theory depends upon the being some kind of creator

it would be like if someone proposed a theory of evolution, but instead of claiming mutation happened at random, said that an alien race was behind each and every little change in life on earth and have slowly shaped bacteria into present day life on earth

this is not impossible, and arguably is an "easier" solution to the problem of evolution... but it is not science... even if we say, "well we don't have to define who the aliens are"

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it would be like if someone proposed a theory of evolution, but instead of claiming mutation happened at random, said that an alien race was behind each and every little change in life on earth and have slowly shaped bacteria into present day life on earth
... even if we say, "well we don't have to define who the aliens are"

All this and more from the people who brought you 'terraforming of Mars'.

....all these I give to you to use, save Europa, Make no attempt to land there......

sings ...."You say God, I say alien, they say extraterrestrial, let's call the whole thing off.".......

[rohirrim TR]

why did this thread get reopened? there is no solution to the origin debate, you either believe in the god of evolution or you believe in the God of a creator, and there is no true scientific, observable, tested, evidence either way. we have been over this issue way too many times

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

why did this thread get reopened? there is no solution to the origin debate, you either believe in the god of evolution or you believe in the God of a creator, and there is no true scientific, observable, tested, evidence either way. we have been over this issue way too many times

and you still don't understand what "science" is about

[Spock]

remember "science" has it's other half , "fiction"

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

why did this thread get reopened? there is no solution to the origin debate, you either believe in the god of evolution or you believe in the God of a creator

And then there are the rest of us who dont view science through the rigid uncomprimising lense of religion and realize that the concept of god is irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

and there is no true scientific, observable, tested, evidence either way.

Does ignoring all the evidence we provide over and over and over again and continuing to simply say this same statement as if what we posted didnt exist make you feel like its true? Denial is still the best tool of the creationists I see.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And then there are the rest of us who dont view science through the rigid uncomprimising lense of religion and realize that the concept of god is irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

WORD!!

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Spock

remember "science" has it's other half , "fiction"

Ka-Ching!


My life is science, I am a scientist by profession and degree....and the wonderful thing I learned by my esteemed "published" biology teachers (despite their efforts) is that evolution has gapping holes in it unless you swallow some dogma and leaps of faith.......but other than 'intelligent design' (ID) ......what else is there?

Maybe we're really products of De-Evolution....once we were ‘one organism’ like the Forest Slug.....only bigger and with more cup holders....then one day tragedy struck.....Indigestion! Which led to 'heavy burping' (good name for a band). Which led to all the micro organisms (us, zebras, game consoles, and low-flow toilets) dis-engaging into the reality we have now......which is that our only hope lies in becoming 'One' again.....I suggest we do this in a vat of beer .......[why do you guys let me in here?]

[Spock]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Ka-Ching!

.......[why do you guys let me in here?]

I don't know but we have this thing about helping those less fortunate.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Spock

I don't know but we have this thing about helping those less fortunate.

As soon as I sound out some of those big words you use, I'm going to be mad

[Spock]

you can always borrow extra Prozac from me Nice to have you onboard.

[Rían]

Nice to see you, Earthbound!

I'm moving Count's post over from the closed-because-it-was-too-long thread:

Originally Posted by Count

Of course, as we've gone over in the other thread (Evidence for Evolution) SETI etc are looking for HUMAN level intelligence, not superhuman. And I really do think there is a major scientific difference there. Along with the other reasons I think ID is not scientific, at least one of which can be found here http://www.slate.com/id/2127054/

I want to address the link, so I'm bringing it over here, but need to do some other duties first.

Also, I'll provide a link in response to Nurvi's question in the first post here

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And then there are the rest of us who dont view science through the rigid uncomprimising lense of religion and realize that the concept of god is irrelevant to the topic of evolution.

Possibly, except for the "coincedence" that most evolutionists don't believe in a god, and that all creationists do. BTW, this thread isn't about evolution evidence, it's about creation. So even if it's irrelevant to evolution it is relevant to ID.

[Rían]

And I have problems with those who view science through the rigid uncompromising lens of methodological naturalism.

[Nurvingiel]

I have made this mistake before, but "evolutionist" is not a word. This implies that believing in the Theory of Evolution is a religion, which it most certainly is not.

Religion isn't bad, not by a long shot! I happen to very much enjoy being a Christian. I also enjoy subscribing to the Theory of Evolution.

Religion and ToE are mutually exclusive. Believing in one makes no comments whatsoever about believing in the other.

Here is your thread back now.


edited for typo

[Curubethion]

I totally agree. In all my posts in the "Evidence for Evolution" thread, I was very careful to specify atheistic evolution as what I was opposed to. Most proponents of evolution assume there's two views: atheistic evolution and young earth creationism. But there's more than that.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

I totally agree. In all my posts in the "Evidence for Evolution" thread, I was very careful to specify atheistic evolution as what I was opposed to. Most proponents of evolution assume there's two views: atheistic evolution and young earth creationism. But there's more than that.

I do recall you saying that. What is atheistic evolution?

Though I do love evolution, I realize that there is more to non-evolution ideas than just YEC. There's also Intelligent Design and Creationism (the non-YE kind). There are probably others as well that I just haven't heard of.

edited to add: I think these ideas and more should be covered in a Religous Studies class. If that was an elective in my high school, I probably would have taken it as one of my social science electives.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do recall you saying that. What is atheistic evolution?

The belief that there is no god, but that the Big Bang happened and we all evolved from random mutating ooze.