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.
If I were setting up a curriculum, I think I'd be inclined to teach the fundamental principles of "Scientific Method", upon which all science is, byt definition, based. And then, assign the students to study both Creationism and Evolution, and come to their own knowledgeable conclusions how each one fits into the Scientific Method of validation. After all, above anything else, the study of science IS the study of scientific method, but there is no harm in letting student plug their own theories into scientific method to see if they work.
Show me proof, scientifically accepted, peer reviewed proof that creationism is real, and I'd be happy to see it taught in schools. The problem is, there is none of that kind of proof. Its all been discounted before, and they have no new arguments.
There seems to be a miscommunication somewhere here. I NEVER said that I want creationism taught in schools. I am not talking about the religious aspect of looking at religious text. What I am saying, is that said texts are a wealth of historical information, that were written by actual people of that period of human history. The perspective the texts are written from are critical to understanding those people, and are also critical for comparison to where we are now. Have we 'evolved' since those times? In what ways? How does our understanding and way of explaining things differ from that period? Why? What major events were chronicled? How did these people explain and view these events? What was the basis for their rationale? What did they set down about their own history and development? What was the basis for their conclusions about their history? In conclusion, how is the rational study of these peoples beliefs, and breaking down their historical texts against modern text, in an attempt to understand our development since those times, correlate to teaching creationism as a fact? I think you are entirely missing my premise here. Do you honestly think that modern scientists, studying ancient civilization and human development, discount religious text as useless because of it's religious origin? Or, do they see the facts between the lines? Run this by a few 'peer groups', and get back to me................
There seems to be a miscommunication somewhere here. I NEVER said that I want creationism taught in schools. I am not talking about the religious aspect of looking at religious text. What I am saying, is that said texts are a wealth of historical information, that were written by actual people of that period of human history. The perspective the texts are written from are critical to understanding those people, and are also critical for comparison to where we are now. Have we 'evolved' since those times? In what ways? How does our understanding and way of explaining things differ from that period? Why? What major events were chronicled? How did these people explain and view these events? What was the basis for their rationale? What did they set down about their own history and development? What was the basis for their conclusions about their history? In conclusion, how is the rational study of these peoples beliefs, and breaking down their historical texts against modern text, in an attempt to understand our development since those times, correlate to teaching creationism as a fact? I think you are entirely missing my premise here. Do you honestly think that modern scientists, studying ancient civilization and human development, discount religious text as useless because of it's religious origin? Or, do they see the facts between the lines? Run this by a few 'peer groups', and get back to me................
The science behind the bible has been tested for quite some time now.
I have no doubt that some of the stories in the bible are true. The Philistines were an actual people, and for quite some time, we weren't sure of that. Science and archeology proved this. Sodom and Gommorah have been found as actual cities (however, no fire and brimstone found there, and they didn't find a pillar of salt that appeared to be in the shape of a woman).
Our mythology is generally based on some actual happening, the Bible took many of these actual events, and stretched them to meet their religious needs. For instance, if you get a chance watch the history channels "decoding the exodus". It breaks down each event in the hebrew exodus story, and shows how each could be caused by actual geologic events, that were linked together. They even discovered who the Israelites were in Egyptian texts. However, the bible was misinterpreted in things like, they didn't cross the red sea, they crossed the reed sea. The reed sea is a swampy area north of the red sea, in the area of the Suez canal today. The story makes a little more sense in the fact that they crossed a swamp to avoide the Egyptians rather than crossing the Red Sea.
I don't know to many people in research who do completely discount all religious stories. However, saying that the world is created in 6 days, and is only 6000 year old is just wrong.
The story of Noahs arc has been attributed to a massive flood in the valley where the black sea now stands today. Every major culture in the world has a flood story, but no evidence has ever been found that the entire world was flooded. However, put yourself in the shoes of a man 2000 years BCE, and if the mediterranian flooded your entire valley, turning it into a sea, you might think that the world was completely flooded.
I know that the Bible isn't all poppy ****, it mentions actual human events that have been seen in other cultures writings. However, where I differe from most, is that just because parts of it are true, or have been stretched to appear miraculous, doesn't make the majority of the book real. The creation story, in my mind, makes no sense whatsoever.
Some religious laws are universal. For example, Thou shalt not kill, respect thy mother and thy father, love thy neighbor as you love yourself, etc.
However, the resistance against homosexual marriage, trying to get unproven science taught in public schools, and things of that sort are what most of us are against.
Even if we had never heard of the 10 commandments, I'd be willing to bet that you would still know it isn't right to kill other people.
If it isn't "right" to kill other people, then please stop killing those you dislike (homosexuals, for instance) by killing their god given nature, their humanity in wishing to love and be loved. Killing is not just the physical act of ending a physical life. . . killing is killing of the spirit, killing of the mind (something that many who proclaim themselves to be christian, do to themselves). . . your prounoucement of "wrong" on behaviors of which you dissaprove is "killing, as surely as taking a gun and firing it into someones heart. . . and perhaps, eventually, you will realize that!
The science behind the bible has been tested for quite some time now.
I have no doubt that some of the stories in the bible are true. The Philistines were an actual people, and for quite some time, we weren't sure of that. Science and archeology proved this. Sodom and Gommorah have been found as actual cities (however, no fire and brimstone found there, and they didn't find a pillar of salt that appeared to be in the shape of a woman).
Our mythology is generally based on some actual happening, the Bible took many of these actual events, and stretched them to meet their religious needs. For instance, if you get a chance watch the history channels "decoding the exodus". It breaks down each event in the hebrew exodus story, and shows how each could be caused by actual geologic events, that were linked together. They even discovered who the Israelites were in Egyptian texts. However, the bible was misinterpreted in things like, they didn't cross the red sea, they crossed the reed sea. The reed sea is a swampy area north of the red sea, in the area of the Suez canal today. The story makes a little more sense in the fact that they crossed a swamp to avoide the Egyptians rather than crossing the Red Sea.
I don't know to many people in research who do completely discount all religious stories. However, saying that the world is created in 6 days, and is only 6000 year old is just wrong.
The story of Noahs arc has been attributed to a massive flood in the valley where the black sea now stands today. Every major culture in the world has a flood story, but no evidence has ever been found that the entire world was flooded. However, put yourself in the shoes of a man 2000 years BCE, and if the mediterranian flooded your entire valley, turning it into a sea, you might think that the world was completely flooded.
I know that the Bible isn't all poppy ****, it mentions actual human events that have been seen in other cultures writings. However, where I differe from most, is that just because parts of it are true, or have been stretched to appear miraculous, doesn't make the majority of the book real. The creation story, in my mind, makes no sense whatsoever.
Nor does it make complete sense in my mind, however, we are getting closer to being on the same page in the same book. Look at what you have wrote here and then reference my questions as a student of human history. As you said, to a person of that period, events that a modern third grader could rationally explain, would have seemed to be 'acts of God' or Gods. Thus it becomes pertinent for said third grader to understand the people of the period, by, as you said, 'putting themselves in their shoes'. Therein lies the science as applied to the Bible, or other period text. Now, some still look to the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, as being the "Word'. THAT is where the line between religion and true science is drawn in my mind. Theology is a science, as it does not necessarily require the student be a 'true believer'. It is the study of religion, not the belief in said religion. One can study without taking on the mantle of belief in the subject as fact. The 'discovery' of what scientists believe COULD have been Sodom & Gamorrah, I saw the same program.They would not definiteivaly state that these places were actually the fabled cities. They just fit the description and general location. The Reed Sea theory fits as well, and lends plausibility to the story of Exodus. The problem with the Reed/Red sea having been in simple translation, it would seem. But, without having studied the texts, this would never have been found. As far as that period in human history goes, the religious writing of the time are the best clues that archeoligists have to go on in their search for the truth. The Bible and such were written by a simple and poetic people, with no concept of things such as astronomy, volcanology, seismology,chemistry etc. At least not at the level of understanding we take for granted. So, we have to unravel the truth, as we would understand it, from their view of things, and all we have to go on is their account. Lol, thats what makes it FUN!
Last edited by NVplumber; 09-03-2009 at 01:31 PM..
If it isn't "right" to kill other people, then please stop killing those you dislike (homosexuals, for instance) by killing their god given nature, their humanity in wishing to love and be loved. Killing is not just the physical act of ending a physical life. . . killing is killing of the spirit, killing of the mind (something that many who proclaim themselves to be christian, do to themselves). . . your prounoucement of "wrong" on behaviors of which you dissaprove is "killing, as surely as taking a gun and firing it into someones heart. . . and perhaps, eventually, you will realize that!
Um, do you know who you are talking to?
I'm all for gay rights, and letting them do as they will. I support a homosexuals right to marry. I'm all about enlightenment, and I wouldn't call myself a Christian for sure.
I was just responding to a post by someone else who said we shouldn't throw out all religious based laws immediately. I was saying that of course we wouldn't do that, becasue some religious laws are universal.
Hope that clears up whatever it was you thought about me.
If I were setting up a curriculum, I think I'd be inclined to teach the fundamental principles of "Scientific Method", upon which all science is, byt definition, based. And then, assign the students to study both Creationism and Evolution, and come to their own knowledgeable conclusions how each one fits into the Scientific Method of validation. After all, above anything else, the study of science IS the study of scientific method, but there is no harm in letting student plug their own theories into scientific method to see if they work.
I don't think that would be viable. For instance, in the study of Evolution, scientists often have to travel to far off places, to find fossils to further their hypothesis. Its not plaussible for a high school student to be doing this. The same I assume would apply for a creationist hypothesis, but they seem to deal little in fact themselves, and rely on the Bible as a scientific model for their theories.
Generally, high schoolers and elementary school children will have to rely on text books for their education. Since text books can't really delve into basis of theory, and Creationists can't support their arguments.
It would be like putting Unicorns in a science book, and letting students try and find out for themselves that unicorns don't exist. Its simply not a viable solution.
I don't think that would be viable. For instance, in the study of Evolution, scientists often have to travel to far off places, to find fossils to further their hypothesis. Its not plaussible for a high school student to be doing this. The same I assume would apply for a creationist hypothesis, but they seem to deal little in fact themselves, and rely on the Bible as a scientific model for their theories.
Generally, high schoolers and elementary school children will have to rely on text books for their education. Since text books can't really delve into basis of theory, and Creationists can't support their arguments.
It would be like putting Unicorns in a science book, and letting students try and find out for themselves that unicorns don't exist. Its simply not a viable solution.
Actually, it'd be a heckuva a lot like putting The Nebraska Man in a science book, and years later admitting that it was all a HUGE lie.
I don't think that would be viable. For instance, in the study of Evolution, scientists often have to travel to far off places, to find fossils to further their hypothesis. Its not plaussible for a high school student to be doing this. The same I assume would apply for a creationist hypothesis, but they seem to deal little in fact themselves, and rely on the Bible as a scientific model for their theories.
Generally, high schoolers and elementary school children will have to rely on text books for their education. Since text books can't really delve into basis of theory, and Creationists can't support their arguments.
It would be like putting Unicorns in a science book, and letting students try and find out for themselves that unicorns don't exist. Its simply not a viable solution.
Nobody suggested that. The idea is to understand the scientific method, and be capable of evaluating an idea with reference to scientific method. The same way mathematics students can study probability without taking a field trip to Las Vegas.
You said I am being short sighted because I discount the creationist argument.
They want to teach in school mind you, that God created the Earth, all of the living things on it. They want to teach that the Earth is only 6000 years to 10,000 years old. They want to teach that God created man in 7 days.
This is what Creationism teachs.
So, if you think they should put that along with science that has been picked over, peer reviewed, and widely accepted, I assume that you must believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Or you are just blind to their argument.
As I said, if someone can show me good scientific proof, peer reviewed, that shows that the Earth is 10,000 years old, I am open to that. I am open to all scientific theory that is based on science. However, if you base your argument on religion, you aren't basing it on facts or reality. Reality is something you can test and study, religion doesn't allow for this.
Atheism/Humanism is the biggest fraud ever and its philosophies masquerate as real science in schools and in society . Take, for example, the infamous 1874 embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin and zealous proponent of the theory of evolution. The famous German zoologist proposed that human embryos retraced their evolutionary history as they grew in the womb – a process he called “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Indeed, Charles Darwin himself was convinced, declaring that the similarity of vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages – which he thought demonstrated their descent from a common ancestor – was “the strongest single set of facts” supporting his theory.
>
> The drawings have been used by textbooks for over 130 years to proclaim evolution. Yet they are known frauds. Haeckel faked his drawings. For instance, he drew the mammalian embryos with gill slits in place of wrinkles called pharyngeal pouches. There are no perforations like gills in the mammalian embryos. Haeckel said the embryos were going through a “fish” stage of development.
>
> The late renowned evolutionist, Stephen Gould, wrote in 2000, “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”
>
> And let’s think critically. What kind of proof is mere similarity? Is similarity of appearance sufficient evidence in a court of law? Or do we need better evidence to draw a conclusion – like fingerprints and DNA? I suppose if you go back all the way to fertilized eggs, all life would look pretty similar – though hugely different genetically.
>
> Furthermore, why should growth phases over a few months in the womb in the life of a single creature have anything to do with the final forms of millions of creatures over millions of years? It seems to me that there’s a little wishful thinking and circular reasoning going on here, tied to the initial assumption of evolution.
>
> There are many other misrepresentations of evidence for evolution in today’s textbooks, including:
> • The Evolutionary Tree of Life. This illustration supposedly shows the descent from common ancestors through the fossil record. The truth is, though, that the major animal groups all appear together in the fossil record fully formed by the Cambrian Period (an inconvenient truth for evolutionists known as the Cambrian Explosion).
> • Peppered Moths. Why do textbooks continue to use faked pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection when biologists have known since the 1980s that these moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks?
> • Mutant Fruit Flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations lead to evolution? Decades of irradiated fruit fly experiments have shown that such mutations lead to disability and death! Mutations never result in improved viability or increased information content within the DNA.
>
> There are, of course, many other misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and biased presentations in science textbooks. All the more reason that we need to be discerning and careful, “avoiding the profane and vain babblings of science falsely so-called” (“pseudo-science”), 1 Tim 6:20.
>
> There is a hard core of scientists who are passionately devoted to naturalism, a godless or even God-hating ideology, and they are quite prepared to use dishonest means to advance that ideology.
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.
. I NEVER said that I want creationism taught in schools. I am not talking about the religious aspect of looking at religious text. What I am saying, is that said texts are a wealth of historical information, that were written by actual people of that period of human history. The perspective the texts are written from are critical to understanding those people, and are also critical for comparison to where we are now. Have we 'evolved' since those times? In what ways? How does our understanding and way of explaining things differ from that period? Why? What major events were chronicled? How did these people explain and view these events? What was the basis for their rationale? What did they set down about their own history and development? What was the basis for their conclusions about their history? In conclusion, how is the rational study of these peoples beliefs, and breaking down their historical texts against modern text, in an attempt to understand our development since those times, correlate to teaching creationism as a fact? I think you are entirely missing my premise here. Do you honestly think that modern scientists, studying ancient civilization and human development, discount religious text as useless because of it's religious origin? Or, do they see the facts between the lines? Run this by a few 'peer groups', and get back to me................
