HELP!

"Today was my first day in college and 5 minutes into my history class i knew i was in trouble! What a suprise(not)...Evolution is the main discussion for the next couple of weeks!"
--Not surprised."I have studied and studied and I know evolution is wrong and science can't prove it!"
--Your perception of scientific study is faulty, and your understanding of mechanics of science-logic is likewize."I just don't remember any good arguments and what not. I need HELP...any good tips on surviving a secular history class being a strong Christian? What am i supposed to do when a test comes and asks for a fact answer when really it's only a nonplausible theory i can give them??? THANX!"
--When approaching the discussion of Evolutionary development in this historical sense, your best bed is to keep an even handed mind-set. Realize that such a theoretical teaching of ancestry is just that, a theoretical teaching of ancestry. Unfortunately to carry on a conversation on the subject would in the most part require you to have knowledge on the workings of scientific inquiry as well as knowledge on the theory of Evolution itself. Just enjoy learning more on the subject while it is available. Suck it in and know that there isn't real conflict between Christianity and Evolutionary development. You will also find that in delving into evolutionary concepts that what has happened in the past when referring to evolutionary development is a bit of a far cry away from the question of it happening before our eyes. Its just that when putting together data you can find that it is possible to make a coherent model using paleographic or historically remnant type information & today's documented change.------------------

"TC, does this mean you've put YECism behind you, and made the transititon to theistic evolutionist?"
--No, this is not the case. I simply acknowledge that the way by which a person may interpret the exact latency or meaning of a segment of scripture may remain flexible toward ones semantic approbation thereof.Another note which may have some significance in the light of this realization is that YEC's need to quit being anti-evolutionists and start being YEC's.------------------

"The situation of YECism's conflict with science is not so much the Creationism part, as it is the Young Earth part."
--Exactly."Even (most of) the evolutionist side does not have a problem with the posiblility of God having had a guiding hand in evolution (biological and non-biological); although finding God's fingerprints is highly problematic."
--I agree when I take your analogy technically."It's the time frame of YECism that is found to be out of contact with any worldly reality."
--worldly reality, aka(in this context), mainstream study.------------------

"Well, they have no real choice since they can't very well defend what they believe in any credible manner so they have to tear down Evoltution instead."
--You should be more specific, your use of the word 'they' is much too general for its veracity to have much of a weight on the scale.------------------

"As a rule Creationists don't really have anything to back up what they believe so they resort to trying, and failing, to refute the science in Evolution."
--Excuse me? 'As a rule'.. I'm sorry nos, I feel you have developed in me an increasingly excessive lack of hope for any credible future for intelligible discussion with me. I disdain your prejudice and must unfortunately manifest that I do not look forward to your input from its absence of worthful Acquisition.
--If you feel you can carry on a discussion of more average intellect raised a bit further than a middle schooled ignoramus, I have no problem with tarrying.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-26-2002]

"There was no worry about that, you offer nothing but fantasy and delusion to begin with. In other words you get the level you give."
--I have read a decent multitude of your posts and again I am sorry, you haven't much at all of a clue as to my beliefs, my research or at all of what I would be to regurgitate all over your evading lap. I sustain, you are prejudiced and your continued nonsensical misaccusations do not in the least increase the merit of your unproductive arguments to fly any higher."I wouldn't say that you were middle school, you're more like a high school one. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself."
--Despite the fact that I am a high school student, it must be quite an odd observation when you have yielded your nescient attitude and predilection.
--Go back and read again...you have lost my interest and an opportunity to expand your evidently narrow mind. As long as this continues, you may observe my disputations from the side-lines.------------------

--Nice to see you again Mark . I have and expect to continue enjoying your input in this forum. In taking you literally for your comment that I 'will end up accepting there is no evidence for the flood, & that there IS evidence for evolution', it would be more accurate to say: 'will end up accepting that the evidence does not add up to a global flood, & that the evidence is diagnostic for global common ancestry by Evolutionary development'. This of course is possible, however I am scientifically unable to say that the inverse may not be true. My passion for education and such inquiry will constitute an answer in the future. Until then, my initiative is just that. If the veracity of my general model of Flood mechanics were judged by how much it hasn't changed from when I first constructed underlying dynamics, I would be in a great predicament indeed. I have no problem with, and encourage adaptation to reality within any scenario and scientific methodology complements this line of action.
--A respect your locking of horns with me in many instances and take all which is considerable into consideration. Some of which may even have required a bit of a flame to throw, at least when they are thrown with concern."BTW, how did the geology "paper" come along? Any results?"
--Ah yes, , it continues to come along quite nicely. It has yet to be due, though I have much to research. I'll most likely continue its production until around the time of February or early March. A section on an alternative hypothesis for the solar systems origin and/or development is what I am currently delving into.------------------

"Research? Bible: God did it. Done."
--lol... I hear a phrase that goes a little something like this...' shows how much you know '. You did read my post didn't you?"Owww, you have access to a dictionary. Prove to me that the so-called "supernatural" actually exists."
--If I did, it wouldn't be called supernatural anymore now would it?
--Besides, I know what your getting at, your direction of argument is misleading. Your use of 'proof' is not what your looking for, and if it is, it is not scientific. Science doesn't have 'proof' as an inclusion to its methodology.------------------

"I may have diverted this topic in a different direction than what was intended, but I think that TC is a valuable example of a hard core YEC having come to some greater appreciation and understanding of science in general, and the science of evolution in particular."
--A Hard core YEC, eh? I am glad you have taken a minute to borrow my glasses "Is the originator of the topic still around, is now the question."
--I put highly into question whether we will be reading any more of his input here, though I would recommend that he stay a while.------------------

"In other words, you can't prove a negative."
--No sorry, I did enough expanding on my logic when I stated that 'Science doesn't have 'proof' as an inclusion to its methodology', which rendered your assertion misleading & futile. If you need me to explain it to you further, go ahead. Or maybe you should just inquire my incite in another thread so we can swell down a bit on driving off xstremefaith's topic.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002]

"Like some others on here you think that all you need for "evidence" is to play some logic or word game and stop at that."
--Listen nos...your attitude grows ever so tedious. You have yet to even engaged in debate with me about anything scientific here, which you apparently avoid from your lack of potential flexibility to your evidently narrow minded personification."Well, this is only a small step in a long process. If you imderstood how science worked you would see this."
--I have briefly explained that you are the one displaying a misunderstanding of the fundamentals, but maybe I am wrong. When your acquisition is somewhat worth while we may come to this. Until then, your first impression shows that you are greatly lacking these principals.--So let us flee from this and get to something relevant to this forum.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002]

"First you have to know and understand how science works, and you being a creationists only know about pseudo-science thus I can't have a valid debate with you."
--Then you should leave the forum, you are, without a doubt, prejudiced and are with such an admittance should not, in my opinion, be welcome to this forum. Kent Hovind doesn't even have the degree of Prejudication that you possess."What does money or the head of a school have to do with this? You mean principles. Gee, some people. "
--Oh darn.. what an enormous mistake! Read it again and avoid being ignorant of the obvious."There is no common grounds, I follow science and you believe in pseudo-science."
--You follow science? I wouldn't follow something I don't understand.--I quote myself:

quote:

---

You have yet to even engaged in debate with me about anything scientific here, which you apparently avoid from your lack of potential flexibility to your evidently narrow minded personification.

---

--You have said nothing which displays that you have anything of any degree of credible to say here, and have done nothing but support my assertion that you continually yield your nescient attitude and unwanted predilection.--You also twisted my last statement, but I would again invite you to come to something relevent to this forum.--Just a question from speculation, but are you xstremefaith's evo twin?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002]

"Mistake #1: You're a creationists. This negates any change of you having a valid opinion."
--You should appreciate the fact that I do not hold the athority of a moderator. You have lost my attention, are not worth any span of time, and have utterly & completely lost my interest.
--I have grown greatly annoyed of your tedious and futily persistant drivel. Enjoy my discussions from the sidelines, as you are not welcome until your attitude is no longer as you have displayed.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002]

"My theory is that nos is a rogue creationist trying to discredit the evilutionists. And, honestly, is doing a very good job of it."
--Schraftinator must have been very right with his analysis over here:http://EvC Forum: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible. -->EvC Forum: A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.--A direct import from the Yahoo 'athiest vs. Christian' debate chat rooms is my theory..------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002]

"Only the ones who want to boink underage girls. "
--Oh my goodness...this is pitiful.. Percy... I leave this little sprout[with emphasis] for you to decide the most suitable course of action.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-28-2002]