|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
Message 208 of 609 (606593)
02-26-2011 7:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by Taq
02-25-2011 5:43 PM
|
|
Re: That pesky evidence thing again
shadow posted;
Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life. taq repllied;
What secular purpose does this have? How does this improve a child's education in the sciences? Will they have to understand supernatural mechanisms in order to have a productive career in the sciences? There is more to life than scientific theory. Students should be taught that science does not have all the answers, and that there are religious revelations more than 10,000 years old that propose that creation may not be a completely natural phenomen. I don't think that information will undermine their scientific careers and I think it will broaden their horizons . taq wrote;
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:43 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 211 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2011 8:24 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 242 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:41 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 209 of 609 (606594)
02-26-2011 7:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by jar
02-26-2011 7:18 PM
|
|
jar wrote;
Except that is simply not a true statement. Scientists do not preach period and certainly not anything as silly as "all is knowable by science". I see a lot of scientific preaching on this board about how anyone who believes in Creation is surely on the wrong tract.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 7:18 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 210 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 7:44 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 219 of 609 (606665)
02-27-2011 4:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by Theodoric
02-26-2011 10:53 PM
|
|
Re: please splain
Theodoric writes;
How long has the bible been around?
10,000 years?
Must be a different bible than the christian one. Genesis the "J" source goes back to 10,000 BC.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2011 10:53 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:17 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 221 of 609 (606668)
02-27-2011 4:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
02-27-2011 4:17 PM
|
|
Re: please splain
jar writes;
Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE. This is way off thread but I will give my source for the answer and then quit. In the New American Bible, The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition it states that The Yahwist (J) source was written in Judah in the late 10th century BC while others say that may be additionsthat can be found in thje present "J" text that were added much later to an earlier version. I don't claim to be an expert so just telling you my source.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:17 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 222 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:40 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 223 of 609 (606671)
02-27-2011 5:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
02-27-2011 4:40 PM
|
|
Re: please splain
jar writes;
The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE Your right, I got my O's messed up. I apologize.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 222 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:40 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 224 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 5:29 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 244 of 609 (607257)
03-02-2011 7:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by Taq
02-28-2011 4:39 PM
|
|
taq;
Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection. Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works. It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation. People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer. This in my judgement is one sided propaganda.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:39 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 245 by jar, posted 03-02-2011 7:37 PM | | shadow71 has replied | | | Message 252 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 1:17 AM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 266 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2011 2:29 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 246 of 609 (607261)
03-02-2011 7:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 242 by Taq
02-28-2011 4:41 PM
|
|
Re: That pesky evidence thing again
taq writes;
We are not talking about Life Class. We are talking about Science Class. What secular purpose is there for teaching creationism in SCIENCE CLASS? How does teaching creationism improve a child's SCIENCE EDUCATION? But isn't Science about life? Science classes cannot just ignore the rest of the world especially when discusing such topics as evolution and the origin of life. Shouldn't students be taught that Science does not know or even havea clue as to the origin of life on this planet? That perhaps there are other theories out there as to the origin of life and even evolution, especially macroevolution? Edited by shadow71, : No reason given. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 242 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:41 PM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 249 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2011 8:14 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 247 of 609 (607262)
03-02-2011 7:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
03-02-2011 7:37 PM
|
|
Re: So far there really is only one answer
jar writes;
So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation. Thats not true. There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today. I hope in a few days to post an OP on this subject that deals with information in the cells and biocommunciation. My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by jar, posted 03-02-2011 7:37 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 248 by jar, posted 03-02-2011 7:56 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 253 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 1:21 AM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2