-I believe that school curricula on the origins of life and humankind should include a mention of alternative viewpoints. Secondary schools don't have specializations. All classes are designed to provide kids with the basics of the subject matter, and with some kind of general context for their studies. When they learn about the origins of life, they must understand that the discussions are very theoretical, and that they do not by any means rule out God. Same with the origins of man. Students must learn that science has obvious limitations on its domain. Things that are not observable or replicable do not lend themselves well to science. -Under no circumstances should Creationist be given anything more than a passing, dismissive mention. It is a stupid stupid movement no better than "theories" about fake moon landings. I suppose a teacher could use Creationism as an example to show students what scientific theories and scientific methods are, and what they are not.
Only if when they read Paradise Lost, they're told that the poem is in no way proof that God exists. Sorry, it's my job as a parent to raise my children in the Church. It's not the school's job to do it for me.
5. "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. Input on Microsoft Word it would require about 160 pages. Your "entire known universe" must be mighty small. Science is about testing facts. In the interests of scientific proof, would you like me to post the number 10 to the 119,841st power here? Limiting it to one page of MS word per post it wouldn't even be considered a long thread.
1) we were too busy exchanging recipes for l'enfant au jus and creme de la kid. 2) well, Nation of Islam is black people, so naturally we assume that we can't criticize them. 3) I was busy looking up sources on noodling, which, since I work in a library, I mark down as "reference questions" answered for "patrons." Thanks for padding my stats, Mike.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the notion that creationism is an "alternative" viewpoint is what gives monkeyhaters the idea that it is a science that should be taught alongside evolution. Creationism, and other religious ideas are not "alternatives", and most reasonable Christians understand that creationism and evolutionism are not mutually exclusive. Yes, teach students that science does not hold all the answers, and that religion serves to seek answers where human knowledge fails. But for Odin's sake, don't present religious text as substitute for science. They can happily coexist.
http://www.khouse.org/6640/technical/CD103.html http://www.khouse.org/6640/technical/BP045.html http://www.khouse.org/6640/technical/BP019.html http://www.khouse.org/6640/biblestudy/CD116-1.html http://www.khouse.org/6640/biblestudy/CD116-2.html For those who have any open-mindedness these RealAudio links have massive amounts of information. You may not agree, but even the geekiest, pseudo-scientific of you lot will be interested I believe at the least. For you haters, simply ignore the biblical stuff and focus on the scientific content.
Evolution/rationalism is a worldview, of which discussion of origins is a crucial part. When you introduce middle-school children to evolution/big bang in science classes, you are also introducing them to a larger worldview that has implications for how they view religion and their place in the world. It's true that a public school should not be feeding religious propoganda to children. However, it should also be honest with them about the limits of scientific inquiry.
Does anyone else see the irony here? You have a group of people who will tell you in one breath how they distrust government and want it out of their lives, while in the next breath they tell you they want the gov't to force their narrow world view on others in the name of religion. ********ing evangelicals need to mind their own ********ing business and keep religion at home.
I read the Bible (or hear it) most days of the week. That's why I have little patience with people who use it, say, to suppress the rights of homosexuals. Or as evidence for scientific debates. When someone advocates a Jubilee Year, I'll take them seriously when they argue that the creation accounts in Genesis are literally true.
If the kids in your community are reading Paradise Lost in school, then perhaps we blue staters really have underestimated you red staters.
I believe they want federal government out of their lives, and the power to teach whatever their local community sees fit.
Talk about moving the goalposts on a few of those. Although it is amusing to watch someone who obviously can't even grasp biology try their hand at astrophysics.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to skipshady again. Your post made me laugh my ass off. I've only gotten to the third page and I hadn't seen it yet, so I'll ask any Creationists out there: Why aren't you asking schools to teach "creation theories" from other cultures and religions? Edited to add: Of course the first post on page 4 covers this. So please disregard my above paragraph.
Oh man, those 17 points were great. I've heard better logical arguments from my 4 year old nephew, typically consisting solely of "BUT I WANNNNAAAA..." "GIMMEE LOLLY GIMME LOLLY GIMMEEE GIMMMEEEE !" (btw - why does "brontosaurus" get qoutation marks? Is it the alleged "brontosaurus"?) the sun shrinks at a constant rate over millenia? Sure, if you don't know no maff... No, we are saying the people who put quill to papyrus were human. That does not mean God is a liar. I'M GONNA TELL DADDY ON YOU.... Oh, that cheered up my day. Thanks
moon dust. If scientists had thought there would have been many feet of dust they wouldn't have sent a landing module that couldn't cope with landing on several feet of dust. My conclusion is that the "several feet of dust" theory was a possible worst case scenario that they didn't believe, much like they were hoping to find life on Mars, but didn't believe it remotely likely. Magnetic field. there's nothing to suggest the field is weakening at a constant rate. Fluctuations are more likely. Magnetism is the result of movement of the liquid iron core. Any currents are a by product, not the driving force. Fossils no linking fossils - that truly proves it. If animals were evolving then you'd no doubt find evidence of animals with remnants of what used to be tails or internal organs that no longer served a function and could be removed without harm. What are the odds of man ever finding such animal? Probablity The odds of life forming on a planet are astonomically small. How many planets are there in the universe? Energy Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Name one action that causes energy to be rendered unusable. Organs if we don't need them we'd lose them - well maybe we have lost them. Fossil Fuel formation. How many of those lab conditions exist naturally? Carbon-dating Rather like speed dating, it has its flaws, but is still pretty accurate to within a range. Dinosaurs this one doesn't deserve the dignity of an answer. Sun's diameter stars aren't created at a certain size and shrink to a dot at a constant rate. They have a life cycle of shrinking and growing. A 'red giant' is far older than our sun. Nile's flow A) the Nile will not have been around forever. Rivers form. Rivers die. b) notice how "under 30,000" years is more indicative of much more than 7000 years, yet that's been glossed over. Earth's rotation evidence exists of polar shifts where (probably) the shape of the earth caused its axis to change. Other plantets with much more rapid rotations and size, and therefore centrifugal force, don't show any sign og going out of shape. written record written by people who guessed, at a time when 1000 years would have seemed unimaginably long. the bible it says so, but it was still written by men and has undergone probably hundreds of translations at a time when the babelfish translator would have been considered unerringly accurate. Of couse, both scientists and religious people could be right, if you take the bible to be metaphorical rather than literal.
I've made this argument about wingers before. If you want to know all there is to know about the values of the far right, ask yourself... Which upsets them more, entrusting the gvt. with their money, or with the eternal souls of their children? Remember that they believe that gvt. f's everything up. They believe that gvt. invovlement inevitably messes everything up.
how about an object plunging into a black hole? or how about the energy lost in transmitting the signal of Air America? You're right, I think that sometime ago, verybdog's brain fell out of his ear and was lost
??? The feds are NEVER the ones mandating evolution in the schools. It's ALWAYS the states and/or local school boards.
Right, which is why the conservative creationist folks are fighting the local and state boards. Where is the contradiction with their distrust of the federal government?
for these websites you posted, it's hosted by the Koinonia House Online, with the sub title reading "Bringing the world into focus through the lens of scripture". right there in the sub title expresses that they are not open minded.
I dont see why so many people in the US are anti-evolutionist. Evolution is the process by which living organisms survived and matured. This in no way takes God out of the equation of diminishes His impact. The forces that caused life to begin or for that matter the origninal particles of the universe are not know by science. Whatever put things in motion is not for science but for philosophy and theology. If God started the process then it fits in with evolution. The only contradiction here is when people insist the entire Bible is literal (how can it all be when some parts directly contradict one another).