Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-28-2017 11:38 PM
403 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,688 Year: 10,294/21,208 Month: 3,381/2,674 Week: 797/961 Day: 109/150 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist/ID Education should be allowed
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1295 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 31 of 116 (402865)
05-30-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by EraqiDberg
12-08-2006 8:03 AM


Re: No Dice
Duplicate post. See below

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by EraqiDberg, posted 12-08-2006 8:03 AM EraqiDberg has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1295 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 116 (402866)
05-30-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by EraqiDberg
12-08-2006 8:03 AM


Re: No Dice
This is called irreducible complexity. If the evolution process occurred so slow, most creatures wouldn't survive.

Actually, genetic processes have been shown to create irreducibly complex systems. I realize you are new to this forum. Perhaps you could take some time to look around and figure out how to make a new topic. The administrators of this forum like to keep topics focues. I would be willing to participate with you in a topic about irreducible complexity and how evolution CAN and DOES create irreducibly complex structures.

What evolved first, the animals eyes to see the prey, teeth to chew the prey, stomach to digest the prey, ect.? and when did the
prey evolve?

The biggest mental block most IDers have seems to be that they cannot concieve of parallel development. That seems to be the trouble here.

The most basic predator and prey systems are in single cellular life where you can both be predator and prey at the same time. Evolving light sensitivity makes you both a better predator and better at evading becoming prey. Digestion is just the funamental requirement of metablism which all life must have to even be considered life. In fact, I can probably be safe in saying that 'digesting' was the very first thing that had to evolve.

Again, all of these things can be best discussed in a more focused topic.

Darwin's theory was inspired before he realized how complex cells are. It is outdated and should not be taught in school.

In fact no one teaches Darwin's theory in school because 150 years of progressed has been achieved and the only reason people still call it Darwin's theory is because he was the first person to write it down in a significant way. Darwin was wrong not because evolution is false, but because he had incomplete knowledge of how evolution works.

Do you really believe that this very moment scientists are still using ONLY the works of Darwin to do science? If so, don't you think that would be a little rediculous?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by EraqiDberg, posted 12-08-2006 8:03 AM EraqiDberg has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 33 of 116 (403052)
05-31-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jazzns
05-30-2007 12:01 PM


Re: No Dice
I also disagree and other than some poor excuses from Dover biology teaches about why they cannot teach more in the classroom I challange you to find any substantial evidence to support this that does not rely upon the temperament of the classroom.

My dad used to teach a (university) course in biology for non-biological majors - students who wouldn't need biology to graduate but were curious about it. One approach he had was to have the dissection lab with no instruction: he passed out alternately frogs and mice and had charts on the wall of human anatomy. The kids were amazed to be able to find the same organs in each and thus learn what to call the parts for their reports.

Right now our standards play to the lowest common denominator to make sure that no one is 'left behind'.

I call this program "let no child get ahead" for that reason. There is also too much tolerance for disruptive members in classrooms. My sis-in-law speaks of teaching hispanic gang kids and the hurdle it was to get them to do anything. Teach them english and they say you are taking their heritage away from them. Put them in spanish class and they fail because they don't know it well enough, but think what they know is good enough.

I have to wonder if it would be better to have mandatory school through middle school and then let students decide if they want to go on to high-tech school -- school that would provide the remaining high school years plus two years of tech school education (with associated degrees). This school would be free to participants but the students would have to want to learn. Let those that do not so choose the enter emplyment with the minimal skill they have and get a dose of reality: they could always apply to tech-high for the next year.

But there is also, it seems to me, a culture of ignorance, that revels is being stupid. This program would allow them to live on their terms and not pull down the rest of students.

Where this is concentrated in certain ethnic areas (ghettos?), there needs to be more of a program to cause a desire to learn. Here I think of having summer education camps - get the kids out of they cycle environment to one where learning is fun because fun stuff is all around them.

Enjoy.

ps - always meant to ask, is that a Bach trumpet (and yours?), I've just been listening to Harry James, "Keep em Flyin" with Glen Miller & his Orchestra.

Edited by RAZD, : add best swing trumpeter ever


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 05-30-2007 12:01 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2007 5:35 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 06-01-2007 6:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1295 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 34 of 116 (403065)
05-31-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
05-31-2007 4:30 PM


Re: No Dice
The issue of classroom disruption is a very challanging problem but I am not for making high-school optional. At the very least, kids who have no intention or desire to learn acadmic topics should be made to learn a trade and basic life skills.

I do agree that not everyone needs science and math. That being said I do believe that MOST people need to have those skills. As many people as you can educate effectivly, you should. This business of guaranteeing that every kid up to age 18 has the same exact education though is doing nothing but destroying our society.

I went to school with the largest gang population in the district. I was often shelterd by being in enriched or honors classes but when I was mixed in with "ghetto" kids, the successfull teachers were able to teach the class without pandering to the behavior problems. It took a very special kind of teacher to manage that but it is not a skill that cannot be learned if we both put more value in our educators and expect them to rise to the occasion.

The problem is right now we treat teachers like domestic workers instead of professionals. IMO teachers should be one of the most respected and revered professions in our society. Yet my wife is "part-time", works over 60 hours a week, has her masters degree, and makes less than I did when I was a bus-boy at a hotel. If she did not love the work she did, I have no doubt that she would quit immediatly.

ps - always meant to ask, is that a Bach trumpet (and yours?), I've just been listening to Harry James, "Keep em Flyin" with Glen Miller & his Orchestra.

That is not my horn no although I do own a Bach for when I played indoors or a concert setting. My main horn though is a Maynard Ferguson which I abosolutly love. It is so light and brassy. I have been told though it is not very good in large group setting because I stick out like a sore thumb.

Right now they are collecting dust unfortunatly. I gave up music for a more practical carear.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2007 4:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 06-01-2007 5:26 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 35 of 116 (403283)
06-01-2007 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jazzns
05-31-2007 5:35 PM


Re: No Dice
The problem is right now we treat teachers like domestic workers instead of professionals. IMO teachers should be one of the most respected and revered professions in our society. Yet my wife is "part-time", works over 60 hours a week, has her masters degree, and makes less than I did when I was a bus-boy at a hotel. If she did not love the work she did, I have no doubt that she would quit immediatly.

That in a nutshell is what is wrong with education. Not just the pay but the social honor of being a teacher. It should be one of respect.

My main horn though is a Maynard Ferguson

Too cool. I have two trumpets and a cornet (my oldest of the three) and one is a Bach.

Right now they are collecting dust unfortunatly. I gave up music for a more practical carear.

Have you looked into community orchestras\bands? they generally practice once a week and do concerts for old folks, etc. No pay but lots of fun. Kept me from going bonkers while I was unemployed several years back.

I also think the loss of art, music and such classes is another part of the problem, as it doesn't give kids who can't be stellar athletes or students a place to shine.

... but I am not for making high-school optional. At the very least, kids who have no intention or desire to learn acadmic topics should be made to learn a trade and basic life skills.

What I see happening is kids opting to try work and later going back to school when they are ready and want to learn. The option would always be open. The reason I included tech schools with the high schools was so that either preparation for further university (replacing freshman year there) OR a trade would be included.

You would actually end up with two more years of free school before having to pay tuition at a higher university.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2007 5:35 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 83 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 36 of 116 (403291)
06-01-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
05-31-2007 4:30 PM


Education Proposal
RAZD writes:

I have to wonder if it would be better to have mandatory school through middle school and then let students decide if they want to go on to high-tech school -- school that would provide the remaining high school years plus two years of tech school education (with associated degrees). This school would be free to participants but the students would have to want to learn. Let those that do not so choose the enter emplyment with the minimal skill they have and get a dose of reality: they could always apply to tech-high for the next year.

Interesting, I have felt for over 30 years a similar proposal for secondary education should be considered.

I would turn the last 2 years of high school into one of four things.

1. College (as in free junior college) for those inclined toward an academics-based career.
2. Trade school for those inclined toward the various skilled endeavors such as carpentry or auto mechanics.
3. Traditional High School for those whose involvement with sports, drugs, prom nite, or other social endeavors precludes them from maturing sufficiently enough to make an early decision.
4. Required military service for the disruptive, and required stockade confinement for the still disruptive.

However, I think the idea that all of high school should be replaced with such a proposal is also worthy of consideration.

Under such a scenario, the basics of readin,' writin,' and cipherin' would have to be covered prior to high school, which would leave no time to teach Creationism or ID. However, the fanatics should be allowed to go to Bob Jones or equivalent high school for the knowledge-phobic as per their First Amendment right to remain ignorant of both science and religion. I understand that the graduates of such a program would have a future in an uncommonly awful presidential administration should the majority of voters once again allow themselves to be cowed by appeals to fear rather than hope or logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2007 4:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2007 4:12 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 37 of 116 (403426)
06-02-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by anglagard
06-01-2007 6:43 PM


Re: Education Proposal
Under such a scenario, the basics of readin,' writin,' and cipherin' would have to be covered prior to high school, ...

And logic and the basis for rational thinking AND the ability to find things out and verify their truthfulness.

Those alone would go along way towards stemming the tide of ignorance.

I would also make the new schools state funded and run, and they set the standards for admission to the classes available (including remedial thinking if necessary).

The standards THEY would have to meet would be set by the combined state universities for admission to upper colleges. Trade or skill organizations would also set standards for graduates in those programs.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added 2 paragraphs ... wasn't verbose enough


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 06-01-2007 6:43 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Raphael, posted 12-29-2007 5:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Raphael
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 38 of 116 (444503)
12-29-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
06-02-2007 4:12 PM


Re: Education Proposal
No, no problems. Ignoring Origins would be a good thing i think, since Origins, although in the Creo idea, supposedly isnt in the Evo idea. Why should schools teach something they're not sure about? I dont think the teachings of Origins is important. Just skip it. Dont teach Creation Origins or Evolution Origins, both theories :D


Truth is still Truth, Weather One or a Thousand People believe it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2007 4:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 772 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 39 of 116 (658562)
04-06-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
12-05-2006 6:05 PM


The greatest misconception that Satan has ever put in the minds of the human race is a disbelief in his existence. The second greatest misconception that Satan has put in the minds of the human race is the belief that If evolution is true, then Genesis would have to be false- and therefore the Bible not true.

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of misguided (to the point even of committing perjury in Dover, et. al.) and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of scientific theories (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. Simply because the origin and mechanism of Divine genesis is of a supernatural (versus natural, i.e.: a process amenable to scientific evaluation) involvement it is not and can never be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the red herring of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six�day account: ...

The order of their listing in the six�day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence: ...

The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence.

Authors Note: Since the writing of the above <40+ years ago>, scientific consensus no longer validates the above. My opinion: With whatever process was involved geologically: 1. The original (pre-adamic) creation and with its removal globally. & 2. Restoration of the earth producing man. & 3. Noahs flood, I doubt that conclusive empirical evidence can be deduced that either proves or disproves the order of life forms in the 6-day account. The geologic stratification deck has been shuffled too many times.

I highly recommend www.answersincreation.org as being relevant to the truth in these matters.

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls� what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. ...

...The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, ...

If Adam was the first primate to genetically evolve in intelligence sufficiently to have a free will- only at which point he could be held responsible for his actions, then it would be critically essential for his mate to have an identical set of chromosomes. Yet Adam was unique, being the first to reach this level.

How did God solve this problem?

And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21�23)

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. Did God clone Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring?

This is an appealing view of a process with an inherent tendency to drift toward an organic goal but it doesn't explain how a random system can suddenly turn into one capable of replicating itself. It is not clear that an evolutionary process without replication must inevitably, or can indeed ever, lead to one that does include it. ...The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

For a complete and concise treatment of this subject, visit: amessageforthehumanrace

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 12-05-2006 6:05 PM platypus has not yet responded

    
OpticalIllusions
Junior Member (Idle past 1748 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 04-16-2012


Message 40 of 116 (659471)
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out. If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today? If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.
Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 04-16-2012 7:35 AM OpticalIllusions has responded
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2012 11:25 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2012 11:41 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 41 of 116 (659474)
04-16-2012 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


Hi OpticalIllusions and welcome to the forum,

I think you have started from a number of misaprehensions of what the Theory of evolutionis and what it is not.

If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out.

The Big Bang is not a part of the Theory of Evolution, which is concerned with biology, not cosmology. When we say "evolution" the word can have many different meanings. In the context of a message board like this, where evolution proponents engage with creationists, when someone says "evolution" they're normally talking about biological evolution. Nothing to do with the Big Bang.

If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today?

The phrase "Big Bang" is just a nickname. Originally it was a derisory nickname given to the theory by its opponents. The actual evwent described by the Big Bang Theory was not merely a "bang" in any normal sense of the word. No such events take place on earth today.

If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.

I think you're contradicting yourself there. You want kids to be taught only what we know for sure, but you also want them to be taught about a god that you admit science "can't figure out". Also, I think you have misunderstood what the term "theory" means in science. It does not mean that scientists doubt the theory's veracity. theories are not preomoted to the status of laws when the evidence reaches some threshold. The term "theory" is the highest accolade science has for an idea.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:19 AM OpticalIllusions has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:47 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
OpticalIllusions
Junior Member (Idle past 1748 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 04-16-2012


Message 42 of 116 (659476)
04-16-2012 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Granny Magda
04-16-2012 7:35 AM


If the big bang didn't happen, then how could evolution happen? Does science have any theories other than the big bang about how the universe started that do fit with evolution? I think if the theories do not fit together, then at least one of them is wrong.

I can accept that the term "big bang" may not be accurate and is simplified, but if science just uses labels to help describe things (and those labels are not the whole theory) then why not accept the label of "God" to help use understand things. It doesn't mean it has to be my personal God or anything like that.

Doesn't the theory of God fit better with creation science then the big bang theory fits with evolution theory?

Edited by OpticalIllusions, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 04-16-2012 7:35 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 10:09 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2012 10:31 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 04-16-2012 11:55 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28689
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 43 of 116 (659492)
04-16-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:47 AM


There can never be "Creation Science"
There is no such thing as "creation science" and there never can be. In fact the phrase is a classic oxymoron.

Creationism starts with a conclusion and then looks for the evidence to support that conclusion and discards evidence that does not support that conclusion.

Science is just the opposite. It holds no conclusions except tentatively and seeks evidence that refutes the conclusion.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:47 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 116 (659497)
04-16-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:47 AM


If the big bang didn't happen, then how could evolution happen?

If the Big Bang had not happened, nothing could have happened. But that doesn't mean that the Big Bang is a theory in computer science or home economics, despite the fact that the existence of a universe is a necessary condition for those disciplines.

Evolution is a theory in biology; the Big Bang is a theory in astronomy. The division of the disciplines is a useful tool for breaking down big problems, and it's not something to just throw away.

I can accept that the term "big bang" may not be accurate and is simplified, but if science just uses labels to help describe things (and those labels are not the whole theory) then why not accept the label of "God" to help use understand things.

Because the use of the word "God" is not helpful in creating understanding. In fact, it creates misunderstanding - the Protestants will think you're talking about how they understand God, the Catholics will think you're talking about how they understand God, the Muslims will think you're talking about a radically different conception of God altogether. There are hundreds of thousands of individual religions, all because people can't compromise or agree on their conception of "God."

So, as a word, it's worse than useless. It's the opposite of communication to use the word "God."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:47 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 45 of 116 (659507)
04-16-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


Hi again OpticalIllusions,

If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out. ...

And the physics involving the early formation of the universe is not taught as part of biological evolution.

... If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today?

A nonsensical statement demonstrating ignorance or misunderstanding.

... If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. ...

Why?

The theory of inflation is an explanation of hows the universe may have developed, and as yet is the best explanation for the stages of that formation. An alternate theory is the 'brane' theory, based on string theory, and it also explains how the universe may have developed.

If you are religious you are free to believe in some agent causing this formation, and if you are non-religious you are free to believe that it occurred by natural mechanisms. The theories don't force you to take either position.

... I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.

What you wish is irrelevant. I wish I had an extra million dollars in my bank account, but that doesn't mean that it should happen.

Science without theory is not science, and that is a fact. The difference between science and opinions and beliefs is that science forms hypothesis to explain mechanisms and then tests those mechanisms against objective evidence. Tested hypothesis become theories used to predict new information which is then tested to see if the predictions are valid or invalid, and falsified (contradicted by evidence) concepts are discarded.

In this way we approach a more complete approximation of reality. Theories are tentative explanations that can be used to find more evidence or uncover more facts, and this is how valid knowledge grows.

Being unsure and skeptical of all theories, continually testing them rather than assuming they are absolute fact, is how science operates.

... knows for absolute sure ...

There is nothing that is known for absolute sure.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:19 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017