Re: Proposed topic 'The Theory of Evolution for Desdamona'

From here: This topic is open to comments from all.Adminnemooseus

I think this is a good idea. However, I think that Des can be left off the topic title. How about:The Theory of Evolution in Simple TermsIt is something we've needed for a long time. Des is not the only one who doesn't know much about it.I would think that we could use Des to remind us of the level we are aiming at and try to be ready to collect it up into a special posting somewhere.

I don't know how you could make it any simpler than they do at The Evolution FAQ.I didn't know this existed until just now. Seems like a useful resource. I love finding sites like this.

There's the argument about the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. Might you want to cover the fact of evolution part, and skip the gory details of the theory of evolution?I presume you wish to focus on biological evolution, and specifically exclude cosmological and geological evolution. A problem there is that the age of the Earth and geological evolution is rather intimately intertwined with biological evolution.I (and others) think the root of the debate comes down to the age of the earth. If you can't convince someone of the validity of an old earth, you're doomed to fail at convincing the validity of biological evolution.Moose

I agree with all you say, Moose.Perhaps this topic could say "Given that we accept the dating methods used and the answers they give"? If someone doesn't then we back up to the topics for that.As noted the evolution FAQ is very good. But if we allow questions from our members here it can grow and be tuned to what is needed.I think that we should stick to the "facts, ma'am, nothing but the facts" and get into theory in another topic.

I understand what everyone is saying and I totally agree. The age of the earth is a major point on our side and if that is in dispute then the TOE is rather moot.My reasoning for proposing this particular topic is due to Des's continuing attempt to state that the TOE is false. I wanted one topic where she could interact with us concerning the TOE. What it says, what it doesn't say, AND the facts that have lead us to accept it.Pointing to a link won't help. It will be skimmed and passed over.A simple statement of the TOE and discussion.
A simple statement of the scientific method (or link to one of the great posts here lately) and discussion.
A few important facts and discussion.
A time for Des (or others of the same mindset) to bring up issues they have... scientific issues.
When the bible is brought up then it ceases to be a discussion on science.I simply want Des, and others, to know exactly what they are arguing against. She has made a lot of claims that need to be addressed by us, and supported or retracted by her. Unfortunately they are coming up in totally inappropriate fora and my alter-ego has to play referee and back her away from what would totally legitimate questions in the right thread.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

A while back I created this topic to propose a science-only forum. It generated a little bit of interest. I point it out because it seems to me that trying to do what you're talking about doing is going to be a problem as things now stand, because everything that's said in the 'evolution simplified' thread is going to be challenged on faith-based grounds. The topic could be more straight-forward and useful if it isn't being constantly interrupted with objections from the bible.If a religion-only forum were also created, those who object to what's being said in the 'evolution simplified' thread could hold their own parallel discussion.

Asgara says:

quote:

---

Pointing to a link won't help. It will be skimmed and passed over.

---

Just so you know, I didn't intend that link to obviate the thread being discussed here. Rather, I think it would be helpful to look over that site to see how it manages to simplify the topic of evolution. Some of the most knowledgeable people on this message board seem to have a difficult time bringing their language down to a level that others can easily understand. In the case of our resident scientists, this is not something they have to do very often. That site might offer some guidance on how to do it.

The purpose of this thread would not be to convert anyone, would not be to make anyone accept the TOE it would solely be to help others understand what the TOE actually says, not what some creationist website claims it says.Any discussion of a religious nature would be totally off topic and would be called as such. There is no need to discuss any religious differences of opinion because that is not what the thread is for. If it is agreed, my alter-ego will ride pretty hard on this thread to keep it on topic.Des, among others has claimed that she understands science and uses that claim to dismiss the TOE. So the discussion is now a science discussion. I have no problem with those that chose to dismiss the TOE on religious grounds, but don't cry foul on the science if you do not know what you are talking about.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Understood and agreed.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

One thing that consistently comes up is "having FAITH in (fill in the theory).Constantly, creationists seem to bring up the idea that Science is a matter of believing one theory over some other theory. I see statements like "You have FAITH that the sun will rise tomorrow" or that you "Believe in electrons even though you cannot prove they exist". It is as though there was some poll taken, "All those in favor of theory 1 raise your hands. Those for theory 2, signify by saying Aye. The votes being tabulated, theory 2 is proven correct".The reason I ask is I wonder if any such topic such as The Theory of Evolution would have any value until the difference between having FAITH that something will happen or that something exists, and expecting something will happen because there is a long history of it happening in the past or knowing something which cannot be seen exists because there are experiments we can all try which will demonstrate the existence of something such as the electron.Before going to specifics (and I think that the Age of the Universe is a major precourser to getting agreement on Evolution), is it necessary to first agree on what constitutes validity?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ned did start a topic What is Objective Evidence. This could be discussed there I believe.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Perhaps there are three topics:
1) Evidence
2) The facts about evolution (with references too but not discussion of dating)
and
3) The Theory of EvolutionI think have more narrowly defined (sort of) threads will make it easy to stay on topicAnother thought:
Are we going overboard? Are we trying to be too organized? I guess these can be additional to what we have so we can leave the looser state of organization in place as well.The idea of a science only forum (or specific threads) that Berberry put forward is good. These could be in there.

This is what I had in mind when I mentioned it on another thread (damned if I can remember which one). Des could argue much better against ToE if she knew what it actually says, rather than arguing against what she thinks it says! While we're not out to destroy anyone's faith, I suppose its good for our souls to heap piles of coals on our heads. We'll know we've succeeded when she can argue against evolutionists and worry us!

Yes, definitely. Your proposed title is far better.Cheers -- Sylas