Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
371 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (10 members, 361 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,402 Year: 1,150/23,288 Month: 1,150/1,851 Week: 274/320 Day: 46/87 Hour: 1/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 126 (538537)
12-07-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JJtheJester
10-19-2009 3:32 PM


Hi JJtheJester

JJtheJester writes:

how life forms came into being and are the variety we see now.

The apostles Paul said:
Acts 17:26 “He made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.”

In the human species, its genetics that created the great variety of traits seen in various nations. IMO, the animals, which were made according to their kinds, have the same genetic ability as we do.

We can easily see this in dogs, cats, horses etc. One species can produce a wide variety of different traits, colors, sizes...even shapes.

I dont think scientists know exactly where all the boundaries are which separates one species from another. There are probably some animals that are considered different species, but are actually not.

Also, kids need to know that evolution is a 'theory' not a 'fact'. Its always protrayed as a fact of science but its not a fact no matter how much people like Dawkins proclaim it to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JJtheJester, posted 10-19-2009 3:32 PM JJtheJester has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 126 (538539)
12-07-2009 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Parasomnium
10-20-2009 9:45 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Parasomnium writes:

I am sorry if I gave that impression, it was not my intention. I was only expressing my personal opinion that religious education should restrict itself to religious topics.

the issue of creation IS a religious topic.

And for kids to be informed of the difference between the ToE and creation, then the only place they'll hear the difference is in their religious class because science refuses to present creation as an alternative. IOW in science, there is no choice.

why dont scientists present a Theory of Creation???

Is it because they refuse to believe that a God could exist???

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 10-20-2009 9:45 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 6:47 PM Peg has responded
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 7:03 PM Peg has responded
 Message 34 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 7:05 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:10 PM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 31 of 126 (538543)
12-07-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
12-07-2009 6:47 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
or perhaps they would be laughed out of the lab if they proclaimed belief in creation?

their goes their credentials!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 6:47 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 6:59 PM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 35 of 126 (538548)
12-07-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Jack
12-07-2009 7:03 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
MrJack writes:

it's because of their tiresome dedication to presenting what reality teaches.

ok, so if we look at what evolutionists teach, it should be able to be tested and varified like gravity can. Gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the lab and elsewhere.

so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 7:03 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:17 PM Peg has responded
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 10:20 PM Peg has responded
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 12-08-2009 5:55 PM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 39 of 126 (538567)
12-07-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
12-07-2009 10:17 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Coyote writes:

Why are you unable to separate origins from evolution?

I guess its because evolution implies that life 'evolved' - the definition of which is "To develop or achieve gradually"

no intervention needed apparently...no designer, no creator

And besides that, when evolution was first presented, it was said to be the answer to where the human race came from. So according to evolution, we were not created by God in our current form.

And to prove that we were not created in our current form, you need to be able to show that life can evolve from chemical reactions into living matter.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:17 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 11:12 PM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 126 (538568)
12-07-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
12-07-2009 10:20 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Modulous writes:

And yes - there is evidence of this claim, the consensus of scientists do think the origin of life started in what might be simply termed 'organic soup'.

thats exactly what i'm talking about. There was no life, then in this soup of 'goup', life evolved

something caused the nonliving matter to change into living matter and from there all the species on earth sprang

If that were true, then surely scientists would be able to reproduce it in the lab. We have all the chemicals here, all the building blocks of life are right here, so you would expect that they could reproduce this amazing thing called 'life'

have they?

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 10:20 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2009 10:10 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 42 of 126 (538573)
12-07-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
12-07-2009 11:12 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Coyote writes:

What we need to show is that life forms can evolve.

well lets be realistic here...genetics dictates evolution becuase its genetics that creates variety and change

Coyote writes:

I believe what is happening is that you don't like those answers (e.g., origins and evolution are distinct) so you are ignoring them.

the are not disctinct because logically, you cannot have evolution without first having origins

What you and others are saying is tantamount to me saying, God and the supernatural are completely separate issues.

Coyote writes:

Otherwise we're repeating the same explanation time after time, thread after thread, and that's not good for a productive discussion. It just leads to frustration.

I can understand your frustration. Perhaps you can try to understand mine. Evolution is only 1/2 of the picture. For evolution to be true, it requires the 'origins' to be true....this is not something that scientists can test or prove by any amount of scientific manipulation. If they could prove that life can come from an organic 'soup', then the picture would be complete.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 11:12 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2009 1:51 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 12-08-2009 1:53 AM Peg has responded
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2009 1:59 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 12-08-2009 5:11 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 126 (538672)
12-09-2009 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Huntard
12-08-2009 1:53 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Huntard writes:

No it isn't. Since god is supernatural. yeyt evolution isn't origins.

And this is exactly why evolution is so illogical. How can something just be here without having a beginning?

no God = no supernatural

but

no origin = evolution

Huntard writes:

Yes, but how they came about is, repeat after me, irrelevant.

how life came about may be irrelevant to some, but to others its the most important question they'll ever ask.

So if scientists want to say that we got here by evolution...then they need to also explain what started evolution off. This they cannot do because they cannot reproduce it. That tells us something very important about living matter...it doesnt happen by chance.

Huntard writes:

For the origins yes. The picture of evolution has long since been "complete" (well, you know, as complete as something can be in science).

only because they believe the origins is irrelevant. IMO, they have been sucked into a hole that they cant get out of because they cant get life to evolve in the lab. Therefore they cant test and prove their theory so rather then admit that the theory may be wrong, they simply ignore origins and say its irrelevant to evolution.

There are many people who refuse to buy into it.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 12-08-2009 1:53 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 5:53 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 51 of 126 (538674)
12-09-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Vacate
12-08-2009 5:11 AM


Re: Percydidit?
Vacate writes:

I notice however that nobody has discussed if this forum arose from natural processes or if created from an intelligent designer. I assume that an intelligent designer created it, though its unimportant really. The evolution of this debate is able to take place regardless of origins.

that is very good reasoning...I absolutely understand what you are saying.

However, what if the use of this forum required your credit card details. You might then be inclind to find out more about it...who set it up, why you have to pay and what your money is being used for.

Would this not make the origin of the forum a very important issue?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 12-08-2009 5:11 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Vacate, posted 12-09-2009 6:01 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 52 of 126 (538676)
12-09-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
12-08-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Modulous writes:

You were talking about evidence for claims being made to school kids in the UK. And there is evidence for the claim that scientists believe 'x'.

If there is no evidence for how evolution began, then there is no evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.

Remember the theory is that life, including humans, slowly evolved on this planet. If they cant show how that evolution began, how can they claim evidence for the theory?

Modulous writes:

Scientists have so far been unable to reproduce Henry VIII ruling Engand in the lab. Why would they have more success with an event that occurred billions of years before written records began?

Apparently, because its a natural occurance which did not need intelligence to propell it.

Modulous writes:

Unless children are being taught that scientists have done these things, it is not on topic.

what children need to be taught is that scientists HAVE ATTEMPTED these things and failed again and again and again and again...and why have they failed?

because its impossible for non living things to come to life. If all children are taught that in science class, i'll be happpy.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2009 10:10 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 12-09-2009 10:44 AM Peg has responded
 Message 63 by Briterican, posted 12-09-2009 2:36 PM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 55 of 126 (538680)
12-09-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Jack
12-08-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
If i told that you I had a baby, but there is no father, you'd call me nuts. Yet that is what evolutionsists expect us to believe with regard to evolution of life.

MrJack writes:

And, in any case, we know for a cast iron fact that life emerged from non-life. We know, for a fact, no life 13.7 billion years and no life on earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that was life on Earth by 3 billion years ago, and probably 3.8 billion years ago. Therefore between these two times some kind of life emerged from non life.

Not quite.

Scientists know for a fact that life emerged full stop.

they dont know from where it emerged, or how it emerged.

Scientists know that life became prolific during the cambrian period, fully formed and in great variety. They cant prove that evolution from the muck was how that life got there...they cant show that a slow evolving from the muck took place.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 12-08-2009 5:55 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 12-09-2009 6:29 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 12-09-2009 4:47 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 65 by bluescat48, posted 12-09-2009 11:59 PM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 126 (538684)
12-09-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Huntard
12-09-2009 5:53 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Huntard writes:

Because they apparently don't understand the two things are independent of one another.

Perhaps to a person who believes in evolution, yes. (and i do get it btw)

But to a person who believes in creation, they are very much dependent on each other.

Creationists believe in a creator who created all the life we see as fully formed creatures. So when weighing up the argument for evolution, I have to weigh up two things

1. 'God Created'
and
2. 'life evolved'

If life evolved, then the beginning of life must have occured naturally as evolutionists claim. But if God created life, then the life forms that appeared on earth billions of years ago could not have evolved. They must have been made.

This is why its hard (ok impossible) for me to separate evolution from origin.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 5:53 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2009 7:00 AM Peg has responded
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 7:03 AM Peg has responded
 Message 60 by Vacate, posted 12-09-2009 7:05 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 12-09-2009 7:42 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 66 of 126 (538782)
12-10-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
12-09-2009 10:44 AM


Re: what kids are taught
Modulous writes:

Would you agree that if there was no evidence for the origins of life, then a theory that describes how populations of living things change over time could still be accurate?

considering the toe has changed somewhat over the years, and scientists have been hotly debating the theory, then it is possible that that a theory could be wrong.

Modulous writes:

Would you agree that if there was no evidence for the origins of life, then a theory that describes how populations of living things change over time could still be accurate? That it could still be true that all living things are related?

are all living things related?

how is a fish and a cow related? a dog and a cat??

thier DNA is not identicle, so how are they related?
Also, man and the ape may look similar, but it is impossible for man and ape to hybridize which kind of indicates that they are not related, yes?

Modulous writes:

By showing how life slowly evolved on this planet. You could show patterns of relatedness confirmed by morphological and genetic examinations. You could show changes in the types of life that exist throughout the fossil record.

what genetic evidence is found in fossils? Can they draw dna from them? Have they done so?

Modulous writes:

Should I call up my local cancer research lab and tell them their task is also impossible on the same grounds (perhaps moreso since a heck of a lot more time and money has gone into cancer research)?

what has cancer got to do with the subject??? Dont shy away from the fact that non living matter does not come to life. Its what scientists themselves have shown time and time again. This fact presents a major problem for how evolution got started...without non living matter springing to life, there could be no evolution

and we are just expected to believe that non living matter sprang to life even though good science has shown that its impossible????

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 12-09-2009 10:44 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 5:53 AM Peg has responded
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Peg has responded
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2009 6:52 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 68 of 126 (538785)
12-10-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
12-09-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Granny Magda writes:

If you are going to say that Genesis describes divine creation (in current forms) and not anything else, I agree with you. The problem is that you seem to be assuming that if we don't go with the Genesis version, then all bets are off. Why?

its not about which God/gods was the creator in this case...its about 'creation' as opposed to an unguided natural phenomenon

the creator has proof in the form of eyewitnesses (whether you believe them or not is not the point)

evolution has no eyewitness and no proof as to how it got started.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2009 7:00 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:08 AM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3313 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 126 (538790)
12-10-2009 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
12-09-2009 7:03 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Huntard writes:

Why? God could've made the first life (which evidence shows are not the "created kinds"). And it could've evolved from there.

I know ther are many prominent Christian religious groups who accept that God used evolution to create life. Some teach that he preprogrammed the universe to develop on its own...this is theistic evolution. Jesus Christ did not believe in theistic evolution and we know this becuase he used the genesis account to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage specifically mentioning the creation of Adam and Eve. His disciple Luke also believed the Genesis account for in his Gospel he traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam.

If anyone knew about how life got started it was Jesus for he was the one who worked along side the Creator at the founding of the universe. I trust that he knew what he was talking about.

Huntard writes:

So, you are asying there is absolutely no variation of any kind occurring?

no, thats just me not being able to separate 'evolution' from 'origins' again. To put it another way....if the 'origin' of life was by non living matter coming to life, then those creatures that first appeared were not direct creations by God.

Im aware that animals can become varied over time...they diversify in their features. I dont believe they develop into new species though (depending on what you define as a species)

For example, i was watching a nature program just tonight and they were looking at how the females are the ones who propel'evolutionary change' (as he called it) because they choose mates with the best traits.

Fair enough i can go along with that. But then he showed an example of a particular african fish where the male comes in a huge variety of colours. (not sure of the name of the fish)

Then he goes and spoils it all by calling every different coloured male a 'new species' ... "a brilliant example of evolution at work"

seriously, what is a species these days??? And why would he call the different colored males a new species???

Edited by Peg, : spelling

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 7:03 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 6:35 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 12-10-2009 7:48 AM Peg has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020