i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.
i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..
I think I may have found one, I'll let you all know how I like it after I read it, in the meantime if you find any more books or video series please feel free to add them here.
The Scientific Approach to Evolution: What They Didn't Teach You in Biology
i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.
i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..
"The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins is not confrontational. He does more to lay out the basic principles of evolution than attack creationism.
I may read that book to help inform my own stance, but according to the main review on Amazon, it wouldn't be suitable for the purpose I described in the OP.
"He repeatedly compares creationists and Holocaust deniers, which is a
peculiar way of reaching out to the other side. Elsewhere, Dawkins calls
those who don't subscribe to evolution ignorant, fatuously ignorant and
ridiculous."
when i was exiting (clawing my way out) i read a tremendous amount of personal.
accounts on the jw recovery page which sadly closed, .
i would like to offer an opportunity for any who would like, to say a few words on .
i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.
i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..
i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.
i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..
I am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (Specifically the JW strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational. I would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but I know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.
Some examples of what I'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible.
i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".
so i decided i would examine this mathematically.
Saethydd, clearly, your Father is uneducated about evolution. Perhaps it is time he read an actual science book on the subject.
Yes, for his whole life he has had simplistic arguments filled with a mountain of logical fallacies used to "disprove" evolution. That's a lot of bias to overcome before one takes an honest look at the evidence, and it is a lot easier to make a logical fallacy than it is to see one or point it out to another person.
i started reading deceptions and myths of the bible by lloyd graham tonight, and graham mentions that the book of daniel, like the story of joseph, is ripped off from a syrian poem about another hero named daniel (or dan-el).. a cursory google search doesn't pull up anything.
is this accurate?
has this ancient poem survived?
Interesting information, however, I know from experience that if you present the similarities between two such stories believers in the Bible will do one of two things.
1. If the story the Bible copies from was written down before the one in the Bible is supposed to have taken place, then they will say that any similarities are a coincidence.
2. If the story was written after the time the Bible story supposedly happened, (but still a solid thousand years before the Bible's version was written), then the second story is nothing more than a distortion of the Bible's "accurate" account.
The possiblilty that the Bible is also a distortion of actual events that were out of the ordinary but didn't defy every law of physics and biology, isn't a possibility that ever seems to cross their minds.
eurgh!
more patronizing and uninformed reasoning from the "experts" at bethel.
this time tackling the sensitive subject of those attracted the the same sex.
Young People Ask: I'm Attracted to the Same Sex-Does That Mean I'm Gay?
Nope, it might mean you're bisexual.
On a slightly different note, National Geographic actually released an article about the subject of gender recently and it presented some interesting information. Gender is not a simple a matter as once believed. If I'm recalling the article correctly, your apparent gender is not always determined by which chromosome you receive at conception. In fact it's possible to have a body that is male while having the brain chemistry of a female, or vice versa. There are also cases of being born with a body that looks female, but around puberty the child's body changes drastically revealing the clitoris the child was once believed to have was actually a penis. So it is in fact literally possible to be born in the wrong body. So I wonder how this plays into this argument, would "God" still consider it a sin to have a relationship with a man if you had a body that looked female, but the brain chemistry of a male?
quite possibly the most annoying and patronizing thing i've read in years.
comments of mine are in yellow.. .
she doesn't trust herself to make her own decisions and she's going to wait years even after she thinks she's ready.
@Finklestein, the book was called "Singles", wasn't it? Amazing how the same basic message is still being repeated.
Why the JW cult must resemble the Jedi order in the prequels is beyond me.
Heh, much the same thought occurred to me whenever I played a Jedi in Star Wars: the Old Republic. I remember thinking how familiar that mindset felt.
i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".
so i decided i would examine this mathematically.
Unfortunately, the math isn't that simple. Brief--and inadequate--summary: Substitution takes place in parallel, not serial, which drastically cuts down time calculations.
Give this a shot: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/theres-plenty-of-time-for-evolution/
The paper it's based upon: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full
Ah thank you, I will examine those articles
