Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In short, nothing. Time its self was created with the big bang.
What Happened Before the Big Bang? : Paul Davies (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html - broken link)
"Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity."
Not buying infinite.
It side steps the controversy. It can be so distorted (finitely) or infinitely distorted but not both.
This is a convenient answer looking for a supportive question.
The underlying intent of an education should be to set a basic knowledge on a foundation of critical thinking.
As the belief in creation is so widesperead across religions, across the world, it would be of benefit to teach creationalism as well as evolutionary theory and discuss the arguments for and against both. The theory that we decended from amobeas is even more of a stretch to believe than that we were 'created'. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in bewteen? Actually one is a theory and one is a belief. Elements of truth may be found on both sides of the issue. To not study both is to attempt solving a puzzle with half the pieces missing. We must honor such a globally held belief as creationism by at least giving it consideration. What is amazing and reaches into the science of anthropology, is the universality of myth where isolated cultures share the same beliefs such as God, the great flood, the sacrifice of the 'son' and so on. Our studies must cross lines of professional specialty.
Why do proponents belief what they do and how may both versions may co-exist......that would be the lesson.
Science is dynamic, A truth/fact held sacred today may be proved false tomorrow. Science requires challenge to exist. The day "the discussion is over" is a red flag, a warning that science has died or if you prefer, was killled. As in the case of the global warming establishment who declared "the argument is over".
Europe held fast to the belief the world was flat. It was heresy and punishable to believe the earth was not the center of the universe. The US government keeps changing the food pyramid! Leeches are back a treatment regimen. Long held was the belief that foul odors caused disease.
Still a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory. Both theories are the best we can do 'today'. It would be a disservice to our society to 'limit' the imagination of our future by restricting thought and consideration.
Imagination is the lubricant of scientific investigation.
There is NOTHING there that makes the word Theory mean FACT and would a scientist say that the world is round is a theory or fact.
The Vatican has acres worth of warehoused archives and if they've got proof of fig leaves, that adam and eve were white folks, that snakes have mystical power to convince people of things... this is a very long list of things to prove and should keep them busy for the next 2,000 yrs. Who else has that kind of job security?
The bible can be approached as written in parable format, representing higher principles/ abstract concepts that at the time were trying to be conveyed to very primitive people using very primitive language. I don't demand it satisfy strictest evidence of a courtroom standard, and I ain't a skerred of no atheist. Christian leaders- Dalai Lama doesn't spend his life declaring wars on all fronts.
The underlying intent of an education should be to set a basic knowledge on a foundation of critical thinking.
Which is precisely why Creationism should only be taught as a pseudo-science to be debunked. The errant fallacies and manipulations of the Creationism/Intelligent Design movement should be exposed in the science classroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
As the belief in creation is so widesperead across religions, across the world, it would be of benefit to teach creationalism as well as evolutionary theory and discuss the arguments for and against both.
There are no scientific arguments FOR creationism while there are also no valid arguments scientific arguments AGAINST evolution. That is reality. I'm sorry to break it to you but evolution has been proven on so many levels that it is truly a statement of ignorance to cite that there are arguments for and against both.
I have repeatedly asked members of the Creationist community to provide a single peer-reviewed scientific study which posits a spontaneous creation event as a predictable and repeatable outcome. I have never received a response. To further upon that, there exist absolutely no reputable scientific papers that lay even the slightest foundation of investigative groundwork as regards Creationism. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support Creationism and that is a fact.
Meanwhile, for over 150 years, actual scientists have published hundreds upon thousands of papers that not only support evolution but simultaneously present a series of predicted outcomes consistent with every single conjecture presented by the theory of evolution. Time and again, in a multitude of disciplines, studies and sciences, the evidence consistently and repeatedly shows up in favor of the theory of evolution. There are no doubts within the scientific community at this juncture as to the absolute fact that all organisms on this planet evolved from lesser organisms and those from even lesser organisms and so on and so forth. That is reality and it's pathetic to even suggest the two are equal theories when one of them has yet to publish a single peer-reviewed paper that meets a predictable set of outcomes in favor of Creationism. Try to find a single laboratory test and the resultant documentation that supports a spontaneous creation event. You won't find it because no actual science is being done to support Creationism. It's a farce, a pseudo-science, and an elaborate scheme to take people's money while taking advantage of their faith!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
The theory that we decended from amobeas is even more of a stretch to believe than that we were 'created'.
This is a personal opinion that has no basis in factual reality. That does not mean the two are equal theories. It only means that you are not educated enough on the topic to actually realize how evolution works. That's not a slant against you, just an observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in bewteen? Actually one is a theory and one is a belief. Elements of truth may be found on both sides of the issue.
But, in science, belief has no merit. Science is based on a rigorous process of proving the various aspects of reality by utilizing a strict set of tools and criterion to come to its conclusions. Belief does not do that - as is obvious by the insane belief that the Earth is a mere 6000 years old - which is also propagated by members of the Creationist community (because of its Biblical "evidence") and clearly flies in the face of every single thing science has discovered ranging from the Laws of Thermodynamics to Radiation to Geology. That is not EQUAL! That is a complete and utter destruction of the importance of human knowledge perpetuated by slimy cretins who want to make a buck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
To not study both is to attempt solving a puzzle with half the pieces missing.
Horsecrap! Until a fundamental scientific basis can consistently prove that a spontaneous Creation event is not only likely but consistent with models of the world, there is absolutely no scientific basis to teach the canards and lies of Creationists in a classroom. Time and again they have been debunked by actual scientists. They have suffered losses in court from local, state, and federal judges including a rather damaging case (Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board) where one of the most Conservative judges on the Supreme Court almost held one of the Creationists in contempt of court for flat out lying about his "theory." Read the transcripts of the case if you don't believe me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
We must honor such a globally held belief as creationism by at least giving it consideration.
Not in a science class, we don't! Perhaps as part of a religious studies or humanities class but not as something that has the potential to mislead people about the facts of reality! Again. Time and again the Creationists have been debunked and proven to be nothing more than a bunch of money-hungry cretins with an appetite for taking advantage of people's ignorance of science and their devotion to their faith. They are despicable people and should be given absolutely no face time whatsoever!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
What is amazing and reaches into the science of anthropology, is the universality of myth where isolated cultures share the same beliefs such as God, the great flood, the sacrifice of the 'son' and so on. Our studies must cross lines of professional specialty.
Not in a science class!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Why do proponents belief what they do and how may both versions may co-exist......that would be the lesson.
In a sociology class, yes. In a cultural studies class, perhaps. In a science class, absolutely not. There is only one scientific valid and plausible theory to explain our origins and existence and that is evolution. I'm sorry if you don't like it. If it conflicts with your world view. If it hurts your "the world was made for me" ego but science and reality should not and will not yield to personal preferences and beliefs. That would be stupid and ignorant of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Science is dynamic, A truth/fact held sacred today may be proved false tomorrow. Science requires challenge to exist.
I agree to an extent but the challenge must come from equally reputable scientific sources - not pseudo-scientific sources! Einstein overthrew Newton's model of physics after almost 300 years. It was a fantastic coup d' etat of human knowledge but it wasn't until Einstein was proven correct from rigorous other scientific investigations (see: Eddington Expedition) that his works were accepted. By all means, challenge the Theory of Evolution if you like, but do so with reputable, empirically reviewed citations of actual scientific investigations. Don't just "reinterpret" the data to fit your worldview like Creationists do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Europe held fast to the belief the world was flat. It was heresy and punishable to believe the earth was not the center of the universe. The US government keeps changing the food pyramid! Leeches are back a treatment regimen. Long held was the belief that foul odors caused disease.
So what?! That does nothing to overthrow 150 years of solid, scientific investigation that has so much evidence behind it, it'd be impossible to outright deny. I simply don't understand how people can be so ignorant of that in this day and age!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Still a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory.
Such as????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Both theories are the best we can do 'today'. It would be a disservice to our society to 'limit' the imagination of our future by restricting thought and consideration.
Horecrap. One theory is the byproduct of a vast group of ignorant, illiterate, Bronze Age goat herders and their thoughts on how the Earth and universe were created. The other theory is the byproduct of one man's nearly 30-year quest to provide a clear and concise picture of the exact answer to the question behind our origins. It has another 150 years of repeated scientific experimentation to support almost every single proposition Charles Darwin made with delightful consistency. The two are vastly different and should not be treated as anywhere near equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Imagination is the lubricant of scientific investigation.
It sure is but so is actual scientific investigation! Not superstitious crap that has no basis in reality!
What do you think should creationism be taught in public schools? Why or why not?
I happen to be a science teacher and the following is my perspective...
In 1787, the very year that the Constitution was written and approved by Congress, the same Congress passed the famous Northwest Ordinance. In it they emphasized the essential need to teach religion and morality in the schools (A moral and virtueous populus being essential to a successful constitutional republic). Formal education was to include among its responsibilities the teaching of 3 important subjects:
Religion, which might be defined as a "fundamental system of beliefs concerning man's origins and relationship to the cosmic universe as well as his relationship to his fellowmen."
Morality, which may be described as "a standard of behavior distinguishing right from wrong."
Knowledge, which is "an intellectual awareness and understanding of established facts relating to any field of human experience or inquiry (i.e., history, science, geography etc)."
Where religion is concerned, Benjamin Franklin expanded up this by outlining the "Fundamental Points" of religion that should be taught in schools.
There exists a Creator who made all things, and mankind should recognize and worship Him.
The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.
The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.
All mankind live beyond this life.
In the next life, mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.
Source: The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen
You see, teaching religion in the way the Founders intended and in fact legislated, only teaches the fundamental tenets of every sound religion throughout the world without endorsing and any one of them. This is meant to produce well-rounded and moral intellectuals with the critical capacity to discern their own religious beliefs from others. Based on the the logic of Franklin's Fundamental Point number one, God would have created evolution so that his creatures can adapt and survive on His the ever changing planet He created. That doesn't change fact that evolution is still a theory and has not been accepted as an indisputable law of nature. And, is also does not negate Genesis or any other religion's creation story, it is the job of the individual to find harmony between their scientific knowledge and their religious convictions. I am a middle school science teacher, my curriculum dictates that I teach the principles of evolution and that is perspective from which I present it with the goal being intellectual expansion and not a transfer of my own beliefs.
I don't know how you can teach something that you don't firmly don't believe is real. That's pretty much a trumph card when it comes right down to it....who's going to teach it? Without snickering I mean?
I've noticed that no one has yet answered the question I posed earlier: Who, other than me, participating here is a teacher?
Separation of church and state:
A phrase which is actually not in the Constitution.
Yep, and neither are the words "Freedom of Religion", "Right to Privacy", "Right to Fair Trial" etc. The intent is quite clear however. You cannot have freedom of religion (or freedom of speech and most of our other freedoms) without a wall of separation between religion and government
Quote:
What it does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof........."
If you take the religious aspect out of the teaching of World History you've gutted the course. Then you'll be able to complain that US education doesn't teach anything.
I think you started a thread about your youth the other day. From that I have to presume you lack a lot of real world experience.
In your college courses did the instructors ignore the religious aspect of cultures? If so, you only got a portion of the education you deserved.
Now when you all start slamming me, note that I haven't advocated ID/Creationism exclusively but instead thrown out some realities and curriculum examples.
Personally I'm agnostic.
There's a big difference between teaching the mythologies of various cultures and having a religion's dogmas intentionally injected into the classroom itself in the form of prayers, Bible study, proselytizing, pseudo-science (i.e. ID/creationism), revisionist history, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
