RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution

RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

mapachito13 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 5:56:47 AM)
I'll let science explain the how. I already know the who and the why and that IMO is more important for me to know. The how doesn't change the fact that Jesus came down and died for my sins which has been proven through the science of archaeology!

Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 8:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 I'll let science explain the how. I already know the who and the why and that IMO is more important for me to know. The how doesn't change the fact that Jesus came down and died for my sins which has been proven through the science of archaeology! Thank you mapachito! I agree!

Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 8:29:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar How much time do you want science classes to devote to weakly supported fringe theories? Well if my theory is weakly supported and "fringe", then I would expect the same amount of time to be spent that is spent on other weakly supported fringe theories such as the big bang, man evolving from apes, global warming etc. etc. Kind of like a "fairness doctrine" if you will for the science classrooms.

iluvatar -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 8:41:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar How much time do you want science classes to devote to weakly supported fringe theories? Well if my theory is weakly supported and "fringe", then I would expect the same amount of time to be spent that is spent on other weakly supported fringe theories such as the big bang, man evolving from apes, global warming etc. etc. Kind of like a "fairness doctrine" if you will for the science classrooms. Not a bad idea, except that those aren't weakly supported fringe theories. There's plenty of evidence supporting all three (head on over to the science forum if you're interested) and given the prominence and near-universal acceptance of these theories within the scientific community, you can hardly describe them as being on the "fringe." -Dan.

Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 9:02:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar How much time do you want science classes to devote to weakly supported fringe theories? Well if my theory is weakly supported and "fringe", then I would expect the same amount of time to be spent that is spent on other weakly supported fringe theories such as the big bang, man evolving from apes, global warming etc. etc. Kind of like a "fairness doctrine" if you will for the science classrooms. Not a bad idea, except that those aren't weakly supported fringe theories. There's plenty of evidence supporting all three (head on over to the science forum if you're interested) and given the prominence and near-universal acceptance of these theories within the scientific community, you can hardly describe them as being on the "fringe." -Dan. Well maybe in your world these theories are not fringe, but then again that's only if you would rather put your faith in scientists who are making wild and frantic guesses at questions they can never prove. Pardon me if I decline from doing the same. And as far as "near-universal acceptance", just remember that at one time the world was flat. I hardly think popular opinion (or PC opinion) has any bearing on what the truth actually is.

iluvatar -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 9:22:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 Well maybe in your world these theories are not fringe, but then again that's only if you would rather put your faith in scientists who are making wild and frantic guesses at questions they can never prove. Pardon me if I decline from doing the same. You'd be surprised at what we can measure and what can be inferred from those measurements - as I said before, there's a lot that is absolutely fascinating (IMO). If you're interested, there are plenty of us in the science forum who'd be happy to explain our positions and the science behind them. quote: And as far as "near-universal acceptance", just remember that at one time the world was flat. I hardly think popular opinion (or PC opinion) has any bearing on what the truth actually is. That may be, but it does affect what should be taught in high school classes. There are plenty of theories in science & history that either go against popular views or at least haven't been studied enough to be widely accepted. Along with creationism, these also include string theory, geocentrism, plasma cosmology, holocaust denial, and moon landing denial. All of these have some measure of support; some have more potential for discovery than others, but none of them are widely accepted by the scientific community. Which of these should be taught in high school classes, how do we decide between them, and how much time should we devote to the debate? -Dan.

tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 10:03:37 AM)
Well, my Bible tells me that "God Created"....and further more it tells me that God created and saw that it was good. It doesn't say that He created a part of it and then let it slowly evolve and improve itself over vast periods of time. Given the choice of believing God or man, I think you know where I stand. If you think I'm being ignorant, then I'll let you take it up with the Father, because He's the one that wrote it....

mapachito13 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 11:34:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Well, my Bible tells me that "God Created"....and further more it tells me that God created and saw that it was good. It doesn't say that He created a part of it and then let it slowly evolve and improve itself over vast periods of time. Given the choice of believing God or man, I think you know where I stand. If you think I'm being ignorant, then I'll let you take it up with the Father, because He's the one that wrote it.... This isn't showing support for the dictation theory of Bible writing I hope because no Bible scholar I am aware of subscribes to that theory plus the Bible itself refutes that theory as well. Sorry if I happened to misunderstand you. IMHO evolution doesn't disagree with the Bible because the authors weren't trying to write a scientific article. The guys that wrote it under God's inspiration were trying to make these important points: man (and the rest of the universe) was created by God, and in the case of man, in God's image (Jesus' image) and man was with God. The consequence of man's pride (sin) is death and being cut off from that relationship with Him. This left man in need of redemption to come at a later date in the God-man Jesus Christ! Day 1 light - Big Bang. Day 2 water above and below. - atmosphere of the planet Day 3 - Vegetation Day 4 - Stars. sun and moon Day 5 - Animals Day 6 - Cattle and wild animals and finally man!

iluvatar -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 7:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Well, my Bible tells me that "God Created"....and further more it tells me that God created and saw that it was good. It doesn't say that He created a part of it and then let it slowly evolve and improve itself over vast periods of time. Given the choice of believing God or man, I think you know where I stand. If you think I'm being ignorant, then I'll let you take it up with the Father, because He's the one that wrote it.... That's fine, but that's a theologically-based position which comes from a particular interpretation of the Bible. You didn't come to that conclusion after weighing the merits of that idea's scientific validity. Science doesn't and can't say anything about God, but it can speak about the progression of natural processes - the contents of a science curriculum should be scientifically sound. -Dan.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 7:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marcus. So you're calling all of us who believe in God stupid now? Did I say that? No, I did not. quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam I've met non-Christians who subscribe to creationism....it cannot be theology if no deity is involved. They would have to be either Jewish or Christian. Otherwise, why would they subscribe to an idea (creationism) that pleads from the authority of the book of Genesis which identifies the Judeo/Christian creator specifically? quote: So I guess that whole "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." part in Scripture is lost on you, right? No. But that is theology, not science. quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 And most of the rest of us find the "big bang" idea to be stupidity. Some people think that algebra is stupid as well-- so what? Should we quit teaching algebra, or cast about for "alternatives?" And who is "most of us?"

tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 8:16:19 PM)
quote: No. But that is theology, not science. Well, if you're a Christian, you either beleive God's word or you don't. This isn't a smorgasbord from which you pick and choose what suits you...

Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/2/2008 8:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: Marcus. So you're calling all of us who believe in God stupid now? Did I say that? No, I did not. You didn't copy the smiley face I had with that question. You do realize I was having some fun with you there. [;)] Since you didn't get the humor and are being so serious, is that what you meant even though you didn't say it?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 10:03:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Well, if you're a Christian, you either beleive God's word or you don't. This isn't a smorgasbord from which you pick and choose what suits you... This is irrelevant. Creationism is not a scientific theory; therefore, it has no place in a science class. quote: ORIGINAL: Marcus. You do realize I was having some fun with you there. Thank you for doing so. I am trying to learn to lighten up, but it is so much easier for me to be querulous. quote: Since you didn't get the humor and are being so serious, is that what you meant even though you didn't say it? No. I meant that it is stupid to teach students that a theological doctrine is a scientific theory.

tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 10:38:25 AM)
quote: This is irrelevant. Creationism is not a scientific theory; therefore, it has no place in a science class. You don't think it's possible to teach Creationism without it being a theological issue? The very fact that we are here tells us that we were created by someone or something. Even if I were to grant the argument of evolution, something had to create the basic building blocks that initially set it into motion. It may be the God most of us accept from the Bible, or it could be something totally different. There is no harm in presenting both schools of thought (except of course to the most closed minded among us). quote: No. I meant that it is stupid to teach students that a theological doctrine is a scientific theory. Almost as stupid as teaching evolution theory as inarguable fact.....

1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 11:01:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam You don't think it's possible to teach Creationism without it being a theological issue? No, not when Genesis is your foundation. quote: The very fact that we are here tells us that we were created by someone or something. Iow, everything that exists must have been created. Why does this logically follow? quote: There is no harm in presenting both schools of thought (except of course to the most closed minded among us). Wrong. Science is not about presenting all sides of an issue. Science is about presenting that which can substantiated by evidence, theorem, and observable prodecure. Even if evolution is wrong, it is at least the result of scientific prodecure; creationism is not. quote: Almost as stupid as teaching evolution theory as inarguable fact..... It is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Period.

tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 1:01:53 PM)
quote: everything that exists must have been created. Why does this logically follow? You just said it. Thank you... quote: Wrong. Science is not about presenting all sides of an issue. Science is about presenting that which can substantiated by evidence, theorem, and observable prodecure. Evolution cannot be observed, merely theorized upon. Creation is supportable by the simple fact that we are here. quote: It is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Period. You might want to look a little more closely into that arena known as Creation Science before putting your mouth in gear....but then, most evolutionists won't even consider anything that might unsubstantiate their sacred cow....

IBorn2Worship -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 1:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam quote: It is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Period. You might want to look a little more closely into that arena known as Creation Science before putting your mouth in gear....but then, most evolutionists won't even consider anything that might unsubstantiate their sacred cow.... lol[;)]

TaoPoohBear -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 6:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Well, if you're a Christian, you either beleive God's word or you don't. This isn't a smorgasbord from which you pick and choose what suits you... But who interprets God's word?! I don't believe the Bible verifies the Young Earth Theory. Take the extinction of the dinosaurs for example - K�T boundary theory OR After Noah's Ark theory

iluvatar -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/3/2008 11:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam quote: Wrong. Science is not about presenting all sides of an issue. Science is about presenting that which can substantiated by evidence, theorem, and observable prodecure. Evolution cannot be observed, merely theorized upon. Creation is supportable by the simple fact that we are here. The difference between YEC and other theories is not the final conclusion that we're here, it's in the details of how we got here. quote: You might want to look a little more closely into that arena known as Creation Science before putting your mouth in gear....but then, most evolutionists won't even consider anything that might unsubstantiate their sacred cow.... We have looked into that arena and found it SERIOUSLY lacking. That's why and others made the comments we did and why I invited others to the science forum to discuss it. I spent most of high school arguing FOR a young earth. -Dan.

Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 9:19:46 AM)
iluvatar, I'm curious, do you believe we humans evolved from apes?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 10:05:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam You just said it. Thank you... I just asked a question that you dodged. quote: Evolution cannot be observed There is observable evidence of what we call evolution. And there many developments in medical and genetic science that are based on the assumption of the validity of the theory of evolution. quote: merely theorized upon "Merely" theorized? A theory is not just a guess. Virtually every precept known to science is "merely theorized upon." quote: Creation is supportable by the simple fact that we are here. I could say the same thing about evolution. But I won't because that is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, and it does nothing to support either side. quote: You might want to look a little more closely into that arena known as Creation Science before putting your mouth in gear I have. Why do you think that I am engaging myself in the effort of correcting you? quote: ....but then, most evolutionists won't even consider anything that might unsubstantiate their sacred cow.... Well, I am not an "evolutionist" (whatever that is). All I am saying is that creationism is not science; therefore it should not be taught in the classroom as an "alternate theory" when, in fact, it is not.

tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 2:47:59 PM)
I will never understand why liberals are so afraid of having any point of view other than their own given air time in the public arena. I for one have no problem with evolution AND creation being taught, but the left cries foul at the very mention of the "C" word. How nice knowing that your beliefs are so precipitous that it can't handle the slightest challenge.....

TaoPoohBear -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 2:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam I will never understand why liberals are so afraid of having any point of view other than their own given air time in the public arena. I for one have no problem with evolution AND creation being taught, but the left cries foul at the very mention of the "C" word. How nice knowing that your beliefs are so precipitous that it can't handle the slightest challenge..... Perhaps I should have rephrased my question to you - Who's version of creation? quote: ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam Well, if you're a Christian, you either beleive God's word or you don't. This isn't a smorgasbord from which you pick and choose what suits you... But who interprets God's word?! I don't believe the Bible verifies the Young Earth Theory. Take the extinction of the dinosaurs for example - K�T boundary theory OR After Noah's Ark theory

cybrjewls -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 3:03:10 PM)
Is History a fringe theory? Thomas Payne was the signer of the declaration of independence that advocated the removal of public expressions of Faith. He was ostracized by the other signers and relegated to obscurity and buried in a cow patty field for dishonorable conduct regarding faith. Some say that it is Thomas Jefferson's understanding that the affairs of state are separate functions from Religious affiliation. The Constitution only says to separate from declared Denominations of Religious Behemoth to declare one of them to be the official 'Brand' of the state. Otherwise, Congress shall make no law with respect to Religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof. Since the members of the Supreme Court are ratified by that Congressional Body, they are under the confered authority granted by the Constitution and should also not prohibit the free practice thereof. quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar How much time do you want science classes to devote to weakly supported fringe theories? Well if my theory is weakly supported and "fringe", then I would expect the same amount of time to be spent that is spent on other weakly supported fringe theories such as the big bang, man evolving from apes, global warming etc. etc. Kind of like a "fairness doctrine" if you will for the science classrooms. Not a bad idea, except that those aren't weakly supported fringe theories. There's plenty of evidence supporting all three (head on over to the science forum if you're interested) and given the prominence and near-universal acceptance of these theories within the scientific community, you can hardly describe them as being on the "fringe." -Dan.

cybrjewls -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 3:23:19 PM)
Amen. Apparently, the 'so-called' left is not as unfundamental compared to those of The Faith as some had proposed; of course. Not Judging anyone are they? And by what standards! The Moral aptititude, the sound precept! What Wisdom! LOL! Hardly what I would call wanting the given construct of law and order in society. Love God, and others. You will not steal. Do not want anything that belongs to your neighbors. You will not murder. You will not sleep with your neighbors wife. You will not bow down to idols.... If only the Church had set a standard by posting these therein, it would not have flowed out of The Church that they do not have to be posted elsewhere in buildings. quote: ORIGINAL: tafkam I will never understand why liberals are so afraid of having any point of view other than their own given air time in the public arena. I for one have no problem with evolution AND creation being taught, but the left cries foul at the very mention of the "C" word. How nice knowing that your beliefs are so precipitous that it can't handle the slightest challenge.....

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI