Is there a resource refuting evolution

[Spy Car]

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now. Seriously.

Calming tea asked for very specific information. It's abundantly clear that you don't have that specific information. Despite your passionate desire for us to be enlightened, some of us still would like to gather this information. You're input into this thread is not needed.

If you would like to debate evolution on this board for the umpteenth time, please start your own thread.

It's just so uncool that these threads always get derailed.

 

 

I never get this either! I wish I could have liked your post like twenty times!

 

 

 

Just ain't so.

 

There was a thread started days before this one asking for books that defend Creationism. No one posted in that thread that wasn't a Creationist.

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/470150-book-for-teen-on-defending-creationism-christian-content/page__hl__+defending%20+creationism#entry4927669

 

The OP in this thread asked a very different question and got input from people with multiple perspectives.

 

Bill

[mytwomonkeys]

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now. Seriously.

 

Calming tea asked for very specific information. It's abundantly clear that you don't have that specific information. Despite your passionate desire for us to be enlightened, some of us still would like to gather this information. You're input into this thread is not needed.

 

If you would like to debate evolution on this board for the umpteenth time, please start your own thread.

 

It's just so uncool that these threads always get derailed.

 

 

i agree so completely and emphatically. then reading this thread would require so much less to weed through.

[Erin]

And, more importantly, the OP said she was interested in how evolution could be reconciled with faith (though won't necessarily change her mind) but didn't seem to have decided that until after so many had commented and shared additional info. :)

[JDoe]

nm

Edited May 8, 2013 by Moderator
Skip the name-calling, please.

[...................]

 

 

Just ain't so.

 

There was a thread started days before this one asking for books that defend Creationism. No one posted in that thread that wasn't a Creationist.

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/470150-book-for-teen-on-defending-creationism-christian-content/page__hl__+defending%20+creationism#entry4927669

 

The OP in this thread asked a very different question and got input from people with multiple perspectives.

 

Bill

 

 

Billy's kinda correct here.

 

I honestly was asking from the perspective of a creationist, but I did want to hear the Science refuting evolution, rather than the (so-called) Biblical reasons. So, it really has been helpful for the creationists to give me some strong Science articles and theology articles. But I'm also glad that the others shared their thoughts with me!! It worked out great for me. I really feel I have new insights. Towards me (since there are like 3 main threads in she's this thread), the posts directed towards me have been respectful and understanding.

 

Just today my son was guffawing and making fun of his Science book which was terribly heavy on a topic we disagree with. This is what I want to avoid!! I want my son to understand not only the Science but the worldview that contributes to others thinking differently than we do! Laughing at it and guffawing is not ok! And I don't want my kids attacking straw men or worrying about unimportant aspects. This thread has helped a lot although I'm not finished with my learning yet!

 

I mean, I didn't ask for that info but that's because I didn't really know that info existed so to me that's what's great about the Internet. I can ignore whatever I want. But sometimes we get more info that we never would have had.

 

 

 

[Aslana]

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now.

 

There are those that wish to learn, even if that learning disagrees with them. Then, there are those that wish not to learn, living in a world where things agree with them and only them.

 

Those that wish to learn despite the disagreement, will never get ridiculed. Those that refuse to learn, well....

 

How kind of you to tell us where we are not wanted. I suppose this would be a good time to remind you and others that Christians do NOT rule this board. On such a wide open and diverse board, all opinions should be sought and should be welcome. No one in this thread was rude to anyone on the other side and no one called anyone else an "idiot".

 

I'm glad Calming Tea welcomed all opinions. It shows that she's willing and wanting to learn, even if she disagrees with that side. That also shows a much higher form of respect for others than you portrayed with your original post.

 

Thank you, Calming Tea.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Billy's kinda correct here.

 

I honestly was asking from the perspective of a creationist, but I did want to hear the Science refuting evolution, rather than the (so-called) Biblical reasons. So, it really has been helpful for the creationists to give me some strong Science articles and theology articles. But I'm also glad that the others shared their thoughts with me!! It worked out great for me. I really feel I have new insights. Towards me (since there are like 3 main threads in she's this thread), the posts directed towards me have been respectful and understanding.

 

Just today my son was guffawing and making fun of his Science book which was terribly heavy on a topic we disagree with. This is what I want to avoid!! I want my son to understand not only the Science but the worldview that contributes to others thinking differently than we do! Laughing at it and guffawing is not ok! And I don't want my kids attacking straw men or worrying about unimportant aspects. This thread has helped a lot although I'm not finished with my learning yet!

 

I mean, I didn't ask for that info but that's because I didn't really know that info existed so to me that's what's great about the Internet. I can ignore whatever I want. But sometimes we get more info that we never would have had.

 

 

One thing I hope you (and the general YOU) get from the thread is the importance of understanding what the Theory of Evolution really is, and how it explains mutations, advantage, and speciation over time.

 

Unfortunately most people have very poor understandings of even the basics of the ToE. This includes people who have no reason to dispute evolution. Evolution (for a variety of reasons) is a subject that is often poorly taught or ignored in schools. What is worse is the deliberate misinformation put out by Ken Ham & AiG, and groups like Creation. They present a false version of the ToE. Theirs is the classic "straw-man" approach.

 

It is at least worth your time to learn what the massively validated scientific understanding is (and is not). When you have that knowledge, you are still free to believe as you will about the origin of life, or how different species of plants and animals (and fungi and other life-forms) came into existence.

 

But learning about a "phoney version" of evolution (as with AiG) is a waste of time and brain-cells.

 

Bill

 

ETA: There is no scientific evidence that refutes the ToE. If there were the Theory would need to be scraped or altered. Science requires that things are "disprovable." The ToE is potentially disprovable. But there is no scientific evidence that refutes evolution. Instead we have a Theroy that gets more evidence-based support every year. Technologies and archeological finds that Darwin had no knowledge of continue to validate his idea. Have there been refinements of understand since Darwin's day? Sure. Are there still some fine-points of evolution over which scientists disagree? Yes. But as a Scientific Theory the Theory of Evolution is supported by the full weight of the evidence.

[JDoe]

One thing I hope you (and the general YOU) get from the thread is the importance of understanding what the Theory of Evolution really is, and how it explains mutations, advantage, and speciation over-time.

 

:iagree: It might also serve to demonstrate the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis, lest someone confuse those two

[Molly]

Billy's kinda correct here.

 

I honestly was asking from the perspective of a creationist, but I did want to hear the Science refuting evolution, rather than the (so-called) Biblical reasons. So, it really has been helpful for the creationists to give me some strong Science articles and theology articles. But I'm also glad that the others shared their thoughts with me!! It worked out great for me. I really feel I have new insights. Towards me (since there are like 3 main threads in she's this thread), the posts directed towards me have been respectful and understanding.

 

 

 

Calming Tea,

 

I believe I am in the same position as you, not wanting my children either to laugh at others or to be laughed at.

 

I have found the more I look into it, the more questions I have for those who believe in the big bang and all living things coming from non-living material. So I have read Dawkins and other stuff, however, I have not had the answers to my questions. Intellectually I can understand the process of evolution which Lewelma described in her other thread, and I have no issue with that. I can see how understandable it is, however it doesn't answer my many questions. I have since decided those questions don't matter.

 

I keep an eye on scientific magazines, both creation based and non-creation based. One thing I have realised in this search is that everybody, no matter who they are, does bring their own worldview and experiences into what they do and say. So I have learnt that I need to take that into account when reading.

 

I adore science and learning about the natural world, it is just fascinating and warms the cockles of my heart when I learn something new that is amazing and extraordinary. Just because I believe the world began in a completely different way doesn't matter, we live in an amazing world which is singing out for more exploring. I love knowing that a volcano can form out of a fizzure on flat land and in 9 years is a 424 mt high volcano. I love knowing that our hearts were formed so that when we are born a valve shuts off the link to our mother and we can live as individuals. I love knowing that the rear leg movement of horses help the blood flow around their bodies. The more I learn, the more my interest in science grows.

 

I don't think I have been any help at all in terms of resources, but I think discussion with your children is the most important and the realization that science is fascinating from whichever worldview. I do think we can use any resource to educate the children, but a variety is good as it brings about the deeper and bigger discussions, therefore the better exposure for the children to form their own worldview.

[PachiSusan]

Yes, yes, and one more yes for good measure!!!!!

 

 

I adore science and learning about the natural world, it is just fascinating and warms the cockles of my heart when I learn something new that is amazing and extraordinary. Just because I believe the world began in a completely different way doesn't matter, we live in an amazing world which is singing out for more exploring. I love knowing that a volcano can form out of a fizzure on flat land and in 9 years is a 424 mt high volcano. I love knowing that our hearts were formed so that when we are born a valve shuts off the link to our mother and we can live as individuals. I love knowing that the rear leg movement of horses help the blood flow around their bodies. The more I learn, the more my interest in science grows.

 

I don't think I have been any help at all in terms of resources, but I think discussion with your children is the most important and the realization that science is fascinating from whichever worldview. I do think we can use any resource to educate the children, but a variety is good as it brings about the deeper and bigger discussions, therefore the better exposure for the children to form their own worldview.

[albeto]

Just because I believe the world began in a completely different way doesn't matter, we live in an amazing world which is singing out for more exploring.

 

 

I used to believe the same thing. After all, what difference does it make to the nautilus in the ocean if one way or another best explains what happened? Then I had a child with a mental health disorder and suddenly, religious ideas explaining nature weren't benign. They were dangerous. I look around me and I see "safe rooms" for children at school to have their rages in. They're essentially lock-boxes big enough for a child to stand and move around in, padded walls, sound proof so as not to scare the other children. Some might call it barbaric. The idea that we as a society deal with human behavior based on an archaic notion of "sin" and "free will" because "it doesn't matter how the world began" is no longer tolerable to me. Teaching people to despise their sexual orientation or identity based on archaic notions of some "objective order" of human behavior is unjustifiable to me. Encouraging people to accept avoidable pain and suffering because it brings us closer to a Jesus that may or may not have actually existed is not okay. Either we understand how the natural world works, or we don't. What we understand affects how we react.

[Molly]

 

I used to believe the same thing. After all, what difference does it make to the nautilus in the ocean if one way or another best explains what happened? Then I had a child with a mental health disorder and suddenly, religious ideas explaining nature weren't benign. They were dangerous. I look around me and I see "safe rooms" for children at school to have their rages in. They're essentially lock-boxes big enough for a child to stand and move around in, padded walls, sound proof so as not to scare the other children. Some might call it barbaric. The idea that we as a society deal with human behavior based on an archaic notion of "sin" and "free will" because "it doesn't matter how the world began" is no longer tolerable to me. Teaching people to despise their sexual orientation or identity based on archaic notions of some "objective order" of human behavior is unjustifiable to me. Encouraging people to accept avoidable pain and suffering because it brings us closer to a Jesus that may or may not have actually existed is not okay. Either we understand how the natural world works, or we don't. What we understand affects how we react.

 

 

I completely agree with all you have said. I personally don't subscribe to religion, however I do subscribe to free will and our own individual choices even with mental health issues involved. You are so right when you say, what we understand affects how we react. I had a situation last year which involved needing to rely heavily on medical science, despite being told by religious people that I should just trust in God. I did put my trust in God and had an incredible peace in what happened. I still do not know the scientific reason my body has done what it has done, but I know the peace that it is what was meant to happen. This is not a black and white world, and if any of us try and see it as black and white we are doing ourselves and those around us a complete disservice.

 

I will leave it at that, as I wasn't adding my two cents worth to get into a big discussion, but I really wanted to reply to what you said.

[albeto]

I still do not know the scientific reason my body has done what it has done, but I know the peace that it is what was meant to happen.

 

Science asks how. How does one know a feeling of "peace" was "meant to happen"? How would one explore this objectively? How does one identify "a feeling of peace" in the first place? Does anything that inspire that peace count? For example, does it count if that feeling of peace comes in response to a romantic evening with a lover? Does it count only after gaining a hard fought for reward? What if that feeling of peace comes in response to an illegal recreational drug? Which variables make for an acceptable "feeling of peace"?

 

Then, what tests would lead one to determine if a particular outcome was "meant to happen?" How could these experiments be replicated in other labs? How would one determine which variables are superfluous? How could this test be falsified? How could one determine *who* or *what* "meant it to happen" and under what conditions?

 

Do you see where I'm going with this? Even though your feelings were very strong, it doesn't mean your explanation is scientifically sound. This kind of explanation can only be applied after the fact, where the positive outcomes are accepted as evidence that things were "meant to happen," whereas the negative outcomes are either forgotten, or understood to be an obstacle in the way of reaching what was "meant to happen."

 

That's the danger with not knowing or not caring how science works: Getting it wrong can be disastrous when applied as fact.

 

By the way, experiences like yours can be explained scientifically, as they happen and are studied rather often.

[Molly]

How does one know a feeling of "peace" was "meant to happen"?

 

Now, I will come back to your other questions because your questions are very interesting and I enjoy discussions like this. But just with regard to this question, it was not the feeling of peace that was meant to happen, it was the medical issue that was meant to happen, which as it happens, is able to be explained by science, but the reason my body did it, has not yet been explained scientifically, at this point everything that has been a possibility is not able to be confirmed as the cause.

[albeto]

it was not the feeling of peace that was meant to happen, it was the medical issue that was meant to happen

 

 

Thank you for clarifying! I enjoy these kinds of discussions as well, so I'm glad you'll come back! :)

 

With regard to this part I snipped, could you also help me understand how you know this medical issue was meant to happen? Like, do you mean this as a figure of speech (eg, the eyes are "meant" to see), or in the sense of conveying intent ("she meant to clean that later")?

[Nomen Nescio]

nm

Edited May 8, 2013 by Moderator
Ramp the rhetoric down, please.

[JDoe]

nm

 

 

:confused1:

[PachiSusan]

I have to share this somewhere. I'm shaking my head and laughing here at a thread over on a friend's facebook wall. It's all about that 4th grade test going around. I won't copy and paste it here because it's not important to the thread here. The question stated on the test was this:

 

"The next time someone says the earth is billons (or millions) of years old, what can you say?"

 

the correct answer: Where you there?

 

======

 

What I find hysterical is that I confronted that ONE answer on that test and said this:

 

"It's things like that that give Christians a bad name about science. Did you see page two? The answer was "Were you there???" . Geez. That's like a child's school yard answer to the bully - "I know you are, but what am I???" kind of stuff. "

 

I am being argued with for that comment by a person who posted "Answers in Genesis" as the pinnacle of scientific research on the "creation" side.

 

I'm leaving it - but I think it's pretty sad when a person on the same side (as in a belief in a creator) turns on another because they dare question this test and what is being taught in that school.

[Nomen Nescio]

 

:confused1:

I have no idea what was in there worth censoring. And it seems that your post I was responding to is also gone.

[JDoe]

I have no idea what was in there worth censoring. And it seems that your post I was responding to is also gone.

Never saw your post, and honestly can't recall mine to be out of line.

[PachiSusan]

I have no idea what was in there worth censoring. And it seems that your post I was responding to is also gone.

 

I read yours and I didn't really see anything in it either.

[Free]

I have no idea what was in there worth censoring. And it seems that your post I was responding to is also gone.

 

I have been following the discussion between JDoe and you and I found it interesting. I had been meaning to read the last few posts in the conversation when I had a little free time. So puzzled to see the posts gone when as far as I could see both of you were following board guidelines. Surely on a classical education board, posts would not be removed because they are too rhetorical? :confused1:

[Jane in NC]

I have to share this somewhere. I'm shaking my head and laughing here at a thread over on a friend's facebook wall. It's all about that 4th grade test going around. I won't copy and paste it here because it's not important to the thread here. The question stated on the test was this:

 

"The next time someone says the earth is billons (or millions) of years old, what can you say?"

 

the correct answer: Where you there?

 

======

 

What I find hysterical is that I confronted that ONE answer on that test and said this:

 

"It's things like that that give Christians a bad name about science. Did you see page two? The answer was "Were you there???" . Geez. That's like a child's school yard answer to the bully - "I know you are, but what am I???" kind of stuff. "

 

I am being argued with for that comment by a person who posted "Answers in Genesis" as the pinnacle of scientific research on the "creation" side.

 

I'm leaving it - but I think it's pretty sad when a person on the same side (as in a belief in a creator) turns on another because they dare question this test and what is being taught in that school.

 

 

I have avoided this thread but I must chime in on the "Were you there?" response. Do people who debunk evolution on the basis of the inability to witness it also debunk atomic theory if they cannot see subatomic particles or the theory of black holes because they have never been in one? This lack of understanding of scientific method amazes me.

 

Susan, I did not reply to your other thread, but I guess I will toss another comment in on the tangential topic of my own education. I attended Catholic schools where I learned Latin (huzzah!). Evolution was always taught as the process by which biology works. The nuns who had the most impact on my education taught us to embrace knowledge. The more we knew of the world, the better we could understand our place in it.

[Aslana]

I have to share this somewhere. I'm shaking my head and laughing here at a thread over on a friend's facebook wall. It's all about that 4th grade test going around. I won't copy and paste it here because it's not important to the thread here. The question stated on the test was this:

 

"The next time someone says the earth is billons (or millions) of years old, what can you say?"

 

the correct answer: Where you there?

 

======

 

What I find hysterical is that I confronted that ONE answer on that test and said this:

 

"It's things like that that give Christians a bad name about science. Did you see page two? The answer was "Were you there???" . Geez. That's like a child's school yard answer to the bully - "I know you are, but what am I???" kind of stuff. "

 

I am being argued with for that comment by a person who posted "Answers in Genesis" as the pinnacle of scientific research on the "creation" side.

 

I'm leaving it - but I think it's pretty sad when a person on the same side (as in a belief in a creator) turns on another because they dare question this test and what is being taught in that school.

 

 

I commented about this upthread, though I think my comments are now lost to the other part of this discussion. You just illustrated my whole point in posting what I did and your facebook friend is correct--just how can we take you guys seriously when "were you there" is the response we get? That's not an insult, not calling anyone an idiot (in reference to the person who felt it was her job to tell the evolutionists to stay out of these threads; but these threads are all melting together. We've had, what--3, 4? now?); that's asking the person who is telling me I'm the liar for respecting the science of Evolution to prove their side.

 

The onus is on the person who is saying their side is better. And in this case, that onus would be on the creation side to prove evolution wrong. Asking for materials like AIG, whose only proof is "were you there" is going to get the creationist ridiculed for being unable to prove anything.

[Marylou]

:banghead: #154 They're still E. Coli

 

And Protestants and Catholics are still people!

[nmoira]

:banghead: #154 They're still E. Coli

 

And Protestants and Catholics are still people!

 

 

And speciation is trickier to talk about wrt to bacteria given the absence of sexual reproduction. It's apples and oranges.

 

If we're going to talk single celled organisms, what about this?

 

Cooperating Yeast Provide Clue to Evolution of Complex Life:

http://www.livescience.com/15477-cooperating-yeast-single-cell-multi-cellular-evolution.html

[Marylou]

Clumpy yeast is still YEAST!

[JDoe]

:banghead: #154 They're still E. Coli

 

Incorrect, whatever they are, they are NOT E. Coli any more!

 

 

They ARE still some sort of bacteria though, just NOT E.Coli.

[Matryoshka]

Incorrect, whatever they are, they are NOT E. Coli any more!

 

 

They ARE still some sort of bacteria though, just NOT E.Coli.

 

 

 

Yes. It's hard to talk about speciation, though, when talking about single-celled, asexual organisms, as speciation is usually defined by the ability for sexed species to produce viable offspring. Where is the line when they just divide on their own?

 

Also, bacteria (and archaebacteria) are prokaryotic (no nucleus, no organelles). The first evolutionary event was likely when the eukaryotic cell (upon which all other life is based, plant, animal, protist and fungus) developed, most likely by one bacteria absorbing another (many of our organelles are likely absorbed bacteria, with their own DNA and cell membranes). The next step would have been living in some kind of colony. Then some kind of differentiation and specialization of cells in the colony. One can still see these intermediary steps everywhere around us.

[nicurn]

.

[nmoira]

Clumpy yeast is still YEAST!

 

 

Ummm, no one is claiming otherwise. But it's another piece of the puzzle that can potentially help us understand how multicellular life evolved. Evolutionary theory has proved to be predictive across disciplines and is consistently supported by new data, whereas various creation models are not without resorting to misrepresentation and casuistry. ETA:They are reactive.

[...................]

My brain hurts!

[PachiSusan]

My brain hurts!

 

Mine too - that's why I switched to a book on the love story of Charles Darwin and his wife Emma. LOL

[SeaConquest]

I didn't see these books mentioned previously, but has anyone else read the books by MIT physicist (and Jew), Dr. Gerald Schroeder? I read them many years ago, but found them interesting. He has written several in this series.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0553354132/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1368039576&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

[JDoe]

Yes. It's hard to talk about speciation, though, when talking about single-celled, asexual organisms, as speciation is usually defined by the ability for sexed species to produce viable offspring. Where is the line when they just divide on their own?

Post #136

 

Also, bacteria (and archaebacteria) are prokaryotic (no nucleus, no organelles). The first evolutionary event was likely when the eukaryotic cell (upon which all other life is based, plant, animal, protist and fungus) developed, most likely by one bacteria absorbing another (many of our organelles are likely absorbed bacteria, with their own DNA and cell membranes). The next step would have been living in some kind of colony. Then some kind of differentiation and specialization of cells in the colony. One can still see these intermediary steps everywhere around us.

Damn, you evidently know more than me :gnorsi:

[Marylou]

I :D

[JDoe]

Good grief! You totally missed the point.lol They are both still around. It was not a replacement of one with another....

 

Hmm, and what conclusion do you draw from those gods that no longer ARE around, or more accurately (since we actually have no proof of their inexistence/disappearance) whose believers are no longer numbered in large numbers , such as the Greek and Roman gods, or the Norse Gods?

 

Or if you want to limit yourself to the Christians, whatever happened to the the Gnostics, the Ebionites, the Arians, the Marcions, the Montanist, .... ?

[Molly]

That's the danger with not knowing or not caring how science works: Getting it wrong can be disastrous when applied as fact.

 

By the way, experiences like yours can be explained scientifically, as they happen and are studied rather often.

 

 

I'm confused here that you seem to think that I don't know or care how science works. I adore how science works, it fits my personality. Science has not been able to explain to me why my body has done what it has done, it has explained to me what the effect was, but if I had ignored the feeling that something was not right, science would not have helped me at all. Yes, I'm quite certain that I could go through a dozen tests, but my life is more valuable to me than wasting the time I have finding out. It doesn't matter to me.

 

I certainly could also spend a great deal of time undergoing psychiatric testing to answer the how I had the peace I did, especially when this was a truly life and death situation, when I have been through lesser events and been scared and fretful, even though the outcomes were those filled with joy. I choose that knowing the why's of these things is not important. It would make me miss the important stuff.

 

Now, you posted something about me using the phrase "it was meant to be". How do I know this? I know it was meant to be because it has radically changed my view and value on life.

 

 

Your other questions I haven't answered as I thought I would, because they were all referring to knowing the peace was meant to be.

[Marylou]

Hmm, and what conclusion do you draw from those gods that no longer ARE around, or more accurately (since we actually have no proof of their inexistence/disappearance) whose believers are no longer numbered in large numbers , such as the Greek and Roman gods, or the Norse Gods?

 

Or if you want to limit yourself to the Christians, whatever happened to the the Gnostics, the Ebionites, the Arians, the Marcions, the Montanist, .... ?

 

 

IDK, but I think Gamaliel was a wise Jewish man.

[albeto]

I'm confused here that you seem to think that I don't know or care how science works.

 

Well, I meant that as a general comment, but I wasn't clear about that. Sorry to be confusing. :)

 

Yes, I'm quite certain that I could go through a dozen tests, but my life is more valuable to me than wasting the time I have finding out. It doesn't matter to me.

 

This is the kind of idea that makes me suspect there is a confusion as to how the scientific method is used. One doesn't need to subject themselves to dozens of tests and valuable time to find a scientifically credible explanation for a personal experience, even a profound, life changing one.

 

Now, you posted something about me using the phrase "it was meant to be". How do I know this? I know it was meant to be because it has radically changed my view and value on life.

 

But this isn't how we determine information in a scientific way. This is a subjective explanation based on a personal experience that takes into account a particular belief as being true. The scientific method, from which the theory of evolution was developed, does not rely on subjective explanations. That's part of the issue here and why the OP won't find scientific resources that refute evolution. She will find creationist resources that refute evolution, but that's in part because personal experiences, identified against the backdrop of supernatural beliefs, are included as evidence in the religious community.

[Molly]

This is the kind of idea that makes me suspect there is a confusion as to how the scientific method is used. One doesn't need to subject themselves to dozens of tests and valuable time to find a scientifically credible explanation for a personal experience, even a profound, life changing one.

 

You have misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to the medical issue, not the personal experience I had.

 

 

But this isn't how we determine information in a scientific way. This is a subjective explanation based on a personal experience that takes into account a particular belief as being true. The scientific method, from which the theory of evolution was developed, does not rely on subjective explanations. That's part of the issue here and why the OP won't find scientific resources that refute evolution. She will find creationist resources that refute evolution, but that's in part because personal experiences, identified against the backdrop of supernatural beliefs, are included as evidence in the religious community.

 

And this is exactly why, I said that the OP could use any scientific resource to educate her children. I also think a questioning mind is needed in order to have some of your big questions answered.

[Molly]

Calming Tea, something I do is keep an eye on the local newspapers in the science section. Just looking today I have found a couple of articles that I'm sure if you google you will find more information and the actual scientific evidence used for the conclusions.

 

http://www.stuff.co....red-family-tree

 

http://www.stuff.co....-one-Eurasiatic

 

I haven't had a chance to look into them yet. I don't know that what is said is actually what has happened, which is why I look further into it when I get the chance.

 

Just wanted to let you know, this isn't at all to do with refuting evolution. This is to do with actually keeping up to what is happening in the world of science. I find it fascinating. Also I found those two articles after looking at one regarding a supposed sea monster that has turned up on a New Zealand beach in recent weeks. All three are ones I'm going to be following up, among a few others I found that really look interesting.