|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
It's interesting we have no "evidence" of the horseshoe crab changing shape or function...much less environment. The chimpanzees in captivity at the zoo do not show potential for any abilities to sew clothes in the future...ad infinitum. In fact, all of the apes at the zoo show no signs of turning human. And yet there they are fully developed after millions of years....and not one of them has turned human yet. But...rumur is...that one did a long time ago...and produced a baby of extroadinary physical prowess and intelligence. Hint: Only one kind of ancient chimpanzee would offspring the pre-human bloodline. Whilst all others would not, therefore; chimpster at the zoo, and the raging gorilla to this day. This "One Kind" of ancient chimpanzee bloodline would then be responsible for black people, white people, asian people, russian people, indians, mexicans, etc... Now let's look at the story of the Horseshoe Crab: In the same amount of time it took man to form through time during his evolution process of changing from the chimpanmanzee, the horseshoe crab did not change, and neither did the chimpanzee. Just the chimpanmanzee called man now. Chimpanzees are called chimpanzees now. But a "special kind" long ago....called chimpanmanzee, is now called man. Therefore; long ago there were chimpanzees and a special type of them called chimpanmanzees which were quite amazing indeed. And would one day fly in an airplane thinking he could fly so fast to escape having to eat or drink or think or poop or age anything differently than a modern chimpanmanzee flying in a plane wondering when he'll get there, and is there any snacks or food because he's hungry. Meanwhile....while this shape shift from chimpanmanzee to the brainiac talking about it, the horseshoe crab still exists. So, the story goes: Some creatures on the Earth evolved...and others did not...and we cannot account for the divers manners of creatures alive at the same time in the ancient past....millions of years ago, and then give account for the times in the past where there was only one kind of kritter. This kritter from our past...the one that morphed into divers manners of kritters now....in cases like the horseshoe crab...decided to cease all evolution and maintain reproduction after it's own kind...VERY SHORTLY, after it's inception from the offspring of the super old super water kritter we all came from. Brilliant. Thank You, Nuimshaan. {Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide blather.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
IF you believe in evolution, then let me feed your brain with food for which you can never touch. The horseshoe crab does not evolve...therefore; IS the supreme specimen, and IS AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN. Because there is no further need for the horseshoe crab to evolve, and neither was there once it reached it's current shape and form, believe me, it is best suited for the water. Perhaps the same will occur for this chimpanmanzee, and one day it will become the ultimate specimen best suite for the land. Until then, the horseshoe crab rules. Thank you, Nuimshaan. {Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide blather.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In fact, all of the apes at the zoo show no signs of turning human. And yet there they are fully developed after millions of years....and not one of them has turned human yet. But...rumur is...that one did a long time ago...and produced a baby of extroadinary physical prowess and intelligence. This series ranges from chimp on the upper left to Homo s. on the lower right, with a series of intermediate steps in between. How do you explain these? (Click to enlarge.)
{Hide off-topic reply to non-topic blather message - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
We are forced to say evolution occured for different species at different rates, some faster, and some slower through time. Otherwise, we cannot refute the discrepencies in our timeline when I backtrack the animal kingdom. Meaning: When I backtrack the h-crab to the time of chimpanmanzee....I need astronomical years of evolution to see the creature from which the h-crab evolved from. Further meaning: Millions of years ago, the horseshoe crab was identical to itself now, but chimpanmanzees and chimps are not identical. So...if h-crab did change form through time with each successive baby, it's evolution process is so slow, that the Earth would be much.....much....much older than we think. Note: I have to take into account the billions of years it took for the super first ooze kritter to move it's water life onto land, way before the horseshoe crab maintained it's shape for billions of years. If for millions of years, the horseshoe crab is proven to NOT have changed shape...but you still argue evolution occured for it...then I will force you to change your estimations of the age of the Earth at very least in any intelligent discussion. Backtracking the chimpanzee with normal evolutionary rates, I can honestly say, that millions of years ago...when the chimpanmanzee existed...there were no apes just rats evolving into apes which would reach full ape form now in our zoos. Backtracking the chimp shows it must have evolved from a common ancestor alive at the same time man's common ancestor was alive. And both the apes common ancestor and man's common ancestor to survive through time until now...so we see the result....brilliiant. I just showed a perfect example of how the mind cannot escape the truth. The chimps at the zoo now...evolved from a rat-like creature millions of years ago. And no chimp like creatures existed millions of years ago but man who hunted those rat-like creatures for food....\ Ancient ancestors of man had no idea they were hunting rat-like creatures that they would one day look at behind glass at the zoo and call them chimpanzees. So....if the apes at the zoo evolved from rats....rats that were alive millions of years ago when man looked like a chimpanzee, called chimpanmanzee.....WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES. Because there were no APES ON THE EARTH BACK THEN....ONLY RATS OF A SPECIAL BREED...ONES THAT WOULD ONE DAY SWING FROM TREES, AND GO OOO OOOO OOO IN OUR ZOOS. Brilliant. Thank you, Nuimshaan. {Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If this is an example of the type of religion you want taught in schools, you have provided the best evidence for laughing you and it right out of the schools.
It is gibberish. Your post is so confused on the timelines and events that it is not even worth responding to. You appear to simply have no frame of reference with which to address a detailed and scientific response. I suggest that you first try to unlearn old falsehoods, then you might be able to more adequately evaluate new information. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Well here's what I suggest. So that both you and I can walk away from this topic with a sense of dignity and integrity.... At some point in time a Genesis effect happened on the Earth. Call it "the right circumstances" if you will, but please save face and admit that this event happened quickly in time....and spawned divers manners of life...all of which bring forth fruit after their own kind...right down to apples and oranges. Thank you, Nuimshaan. {Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined:
|
Wow. So much gibberish and wrongness, so little time to criticise it... {Irrelevant reply to blather message hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : I hid something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
I'm forced to play mediator between these two opposing forces...and I have come to this conclusion: The creationists and the evolutionists are only disputing a rate of change. On the one hand the creationists are saying that multiple forms of life were created in this amount of time. On the other hand the evolutionists are saying that it happened much slower. Either way...in the eyes of the Lord....there are many forms of life on Earth, and all are alive because they were formed in the past and live. How long did it take? In the blink of an eye....The Genesis of Life...the perfect Earth for the perfect situation, the elusive....."Perfect Circumstances" as referrenced from chaos theory. The intertwining of life and stars.....as the string theory suggests, and how it's all strung together.... We are ignorant of time though. As is evidenced by the Timex 3000. I can calculate time down to the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000013 of second with such a watch, and still no matter how fast something is moving it must travel a distance in a specific meazureable amount of time...no matter how miniscule this super fraction of a millisecond it may be. I can go on and on...ad infinitum for time. The speed of the object moving is not time...it's speed. Time can witness a perfectly motionless rock for ever...... Time can witness that rock move at 40 trillion times the speed of light, and still say it moved from here to there in THIS amount of time. None of this changes time, it doesn't time travel into the past, it doesn't skip events of now to the future, it all must happen, and however it happens, it did so while time had no power. Time has no power whatsoever, it does not determine what will happen...what will happen is this, even if it's in a hurry, and even it it took too long. A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day....these are words spoken from where time stands still. And it because of this permanent source of witness and power, our attempts to move around fast in a ship...will fail to escape time, or slow it down, or speed it up...there is no other time travel than travel time. Thank you, Nuimshaan. {Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hiding blather.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Here's an excerpt from our lives: Man: Why did you create evil?God: It takes love to give creation free will, knowing full well it may not fare well, but some will get it and hold fast to that which is of the essence of it's creator. Man: But why did you create the devil if you knew he would become evil?God: I did not create the devil, I created Lucifer....and it takes love to create all things with a free will. It is unfortunate Lucifer has fallen, but love actually is love for real, and some have gotten it, despite the fact a sour, bitter, stubborn, destructive, lying son called Lucifer does not. Man: If you knew man would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then did you simply set a trap for man...like pouring poison in the corner of the ant colony...knowing they would be attracted to it, eat it, and then die>?God: First of all, man was given the tree of life to eat from freely. Secondly a warning was given to man from me...whom man needs in his life to understand his situation and purpose....but free will is given by love's cause and so a choice was given. And mercy was shown without freeze of time or destroy and recreate. Man: Well can't you just snap your fingers and remove all evil now...God: Yes I could...but a lof of your friends would disappear, and loved ones, if I removed all evil in the world out of even flesh and ground and water at once. Man: Whoa! You mean to tell me that even though you can tell the future, I can also change the future for which you will tell...based upon the free will decisions I make for my own future.....but after it's said and done, I made the decisions I made, and you predicted them....God: Yes son. And I gave you good counsel while you yet lived. God: I warned you. If I warned you, it was my free will decision to do so, and nothing has the power of my will. God: Perhaps you should listen to my warnings, because they ARE out of love, and ARE good for your body, and your life, and your world....ad infinitum, world without end. {Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hiding blather.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I miss Brad McFall and the good old days when we could get real high quality gibberish, that contained heavy hints of profound insight.
And people were replying to Nuimshaan - Are you that desperate to do something with your keyboard?
I want one reply to this message. It's a scavenger hunt - Someone find the last message in this topic that actually had a real connection to the topic theme. There may be a "get out of 1 suspension card" in it for you. Message must be pre-message 125. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add message 125 sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Message 119:
Tempo writes: Religion, or more particularly, creationism, should not be taught in schools. This is because there are too many variations of creationism, since there are so many different religions. None of these are supported by observed evidence or data.Evolution is backed up with biological data and the fossil record, but even more importantly, evolution is a theory that effectively demonstrates the scientific method. For these reasons, it should be taught in schools. Following that, there was a backlash at archaeologist before it turned into the nonsense from Nuimshaan and associated bored criticisms. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link. It was [url=mid=577190] etc. Change to [midt=...]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Yeah, I managed to overlook that one in all the clutter.
Next previous contact (sort of) is message 114. From there you have to go back somewhere prior to message 100. So we've had 2 topic theme contacts in 30+ messages. I'm going to close this one down if the next messages aren't on topic. NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE - AFTER ALL, IT IS OFF-TOPIC. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
This video has been removed due to terms of use violations But if it's typical, I'm sure that it presents a misrepresentation of evolution, which does not accurately inform the students about science nor about scientific concepts. Then, if it's typical, it proceeds to disprove that misrepresentation, AKA "disemboweling a strawman". And, if it's typical of "creation science's" "balanced treatment" "instructional" material, it then urges the students to decide, right then and there, between the Creator (which it is careful to not specifically identify, obvious though to Whom they refer) and atheistic evolution. In short, they are compelling belief. Is that consistent with the goals and purpose of science education? The 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve included California's State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, which supercedes the 1972 Anti-Dogmatism Policy (text here of the 1990 policy copied from California State Board of Education | National Center for Science Education):
quote: "Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding." Students need to have some degree of understanding of science and scientific concepts. Including "creation science" detracts from that goal. Students are not to be compelled to believe in the subject matter, but rather to understand it. For example, in 1982 the US Air Force instructed me in Communism. Obviously, the intent was not to compel me to embrace Communism, but rather for me to know more about our opposing superpower (that was during the Cold War). "Creation science" "public school" materials explicitly and specifically seek to compel belief. Including "creation science" in the science classroom would obviously be contrary to science education. OTOH, it is very important for creationists that their children do learn everything they can about evolution. If they wish their children to be able to fight against evolution, then keep them ignorant of their avowed enemy and being grossly misinformed about that enemy will only guarantee their defeat. And the defection of their children to their enemy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
As I ask in the thread about Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula, "Should Sacred Studies, the study of religions, their history, their effects on society, the basic tenets of each and inter-relationships be taught as part of the general public education in the US"? My answer is "most certainly." I just glanced though the above cited. Your message 1 did not include any specifics, nor did I find such in the following message (again, I was a quick look). I propose that you start a new topic and include some specifics in your message 1. What aspects of Christianity would you include within a "will be constitutional" framework? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
What aspects of Christianity would you include within a "will be constitutional" framework? There is lots covered in that thread, but of course Christianity would only be one of the religions covered. It's hardly worth a whole new thread IMHO, particularly since there are many many examples already in practice, for example the studies in the UK. The minimal religions covered would the the Judaic family (stressing the similarities), the Indus Valley religions, the historic pantheon (Greek, Roman, Norse), Egyptian, and then the Philosophic religions, the writings of Mencius, Confucius, Taoism, Buddhism. Typical questions would be things like what did (pick a religion) say about (pick a subject). It would cover both the good and bad effects of religion over time. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024