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 think it needs to be taught along side other theories since the majority still believes in those other theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebnllnb
Van what should schools then cut from their curriculum to make room for this theology? And which theory of creation should be taught?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
What am I a school board member?
You proffered the idea therefor mine is a legitimate question. I ask you what versions of creation should be taught. And what should be cut. Teachers only have so many hours in a day to teach. If you add something new something else must go or be reduced. What should that something be? Music, Art, Language, History, Psychical Education? Or do you not think your ideas through?
Bacteria developing resitance to an antibiotic, or a mosquito developing resistance to an insecticide is adaptation, not so called "evolution". The bacteria is still bacteria, the mosquito is still a mosquito (it hasn't become a hummingbird).
In the days when dinosaurs reigned there were no dogs, cats, people, horses, etc, etc....If not evolution where did they come from?
I think it needs to be taught along side other theories since the majority still believes in those other theories.
What do you mean by "along side?" That looks like you are proposing that Non scientific theories need to taught where scientific theories are taught. Did you forget that you wrote that? It might be better relegated to an ancient literature elective.
Here's a popular kids' scientist voicing his opinion. But the Gallop poll clearly shows that Creationism in some fashion is still what people believe. 46 percent believe in creationism,32 percent believe in evolution guided by God. With only 15 percent believing in atheistic evolution, should that even be taught in schools? I think it needs to be taught along side other theories since the majority still believes in those other theories. What are your thoughts?
The opinion of the general populace, most of whom don't even understand how water ****ing boils, is a valid source to determine scientific consensus, but a "kids' scientist", with an honorary doctorates, and the heavy consensus of the entire scientific community, is not?
You sir, are a - wait, how strict are this board's flaming rules?
The opinion of the general populace, most of whom don't even understand how water ****ing boils, is a valid source to determine scientific consensus, but a "kids' scientist", with an honorary doctorates, and the heavy consensus of the entire scientific community, is not?
You sir, are a - wait, how strict are this board's flaming rules?
Don't confuse the fact that Bill Nye made videos for kids with his education. His kids videos came after he had his career in real science and engineering.
He worked as an engineer at Boeing Aircraft in Seattle, and appeared in at least 3 training films, some of which are still popular among the workers there.
Quote:
He designed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor which is used in Boeing 747s.
Quote:
An honored as Rhodes Class of '56 Visiting Professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where he received his Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering. He studied under Carl Sagan.
Quote:
Nye is also an inventor -- he is given credit for the sundials (or "marsdials") put on the Mars Exploration Rovers launched by NASA in 2003
I think it needs to be taught along side other theories since the majority still believes in those other theories. What are your thoughts?
My thoughts:
Science has determined that the universe at large at several billion years old, forming from interstellar dusts and gasses under well-known chemical and biological processes over several millennia. Creationism says that the Earth is six thousand years old, and was formed in seven days' time from nothing but divine will.
Science indicates that life on this planet began as chemical soup and gradually worked its way to a viable biological organism through a process of 'trial and error' that discarded the least successful attributes in favor of stronger, more robust development. Creationism says that God created Man out of dirt, and then used Adams' rib to create Eve. No word on how two people could sustain an entire population.
Science has been able to trace mankind's biological history via mitochondrial DNA back thousands (if not millions) of years to identify our species' most likely 'common ancestor'. Creationism still hasn't explained how Adam and Eve populated an entire planet with healthy, viable offspring, despite their acknowledged status as the only two humans on the face of the Earth at the time.
In conclusion:
Science can point to a large body of research, theory and conclusive evidence that explains, very clearly, how this world and its inhabitants came to exist.
Creationism can point to one book, written nearly two thousand years ago by a dozen different people who never even met, and that's filled with fable, parable and allegory.
Our educational system is designed to teach fact, not myth. I would much rather sit in a classroom and learn from a teacher that knows how to tell the difference.
In the days when dinosaurs reigned there were no dogs, cats, people, horses, etc, etc....If not evolution where did they come from?
I believe the theory is that in the day...there were dinosaurs, dogs, cats, horses and people. all inhabiting one HUGE island which is know to SCIENCE as Pangea but was actually Eden. Or part of it surrounded by rivers was. YE Creationists can have fun matching Gen 2.10 -15 to maps of Pangea. Have fun
Or more accurately, BIBLICAL creationism is a lie - or at least a man made fairytale. There may well be some creator or creative force, even though it is most certainly not the god of The Bible (or Allah etc).
Evolution is still a fact regardless of whether it is a product of that unnamed creator or the result of pure natural processes (assumed there is a difference between the two).
The opinion of the general populace, most of whom don't even understand how water ****ing boils, is a valid source to determine scientific consensus, but a "kids' scientist", with an honorary doctorates, and the heavy consensus of the entire scientific community, is not?
You sir, are a - wait, how strict are this board's flaming rules?
Well, let's just say that they are pretty strict when you are criticizing Christians and The Bible...
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.
as Pangea but was actually Eden. Or part of it surrounded by rivers was. YE Creationists can have fun matching Gen 2.10 -15 to maps of Pangea. Have fun 
