Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?

Big bang cosmology?Do I win 5?

How would you give your cosmology lecture 3,500 years ago and make it apply to all generations of humanity - a feat in itself no? Allow me to surmise a suitable answer.1. First you'd have to nominate which universe you are discussing [w/o using the term universe], and whether that universe was finite or infinite [w/o using those terms], namely, did the heavens and the earth always exist or was there a beginning point? That appears the correct preamble.2. Next up, I imagine you would have to deal with how the universe was made. My suspicion is you would have to conclude that the universe works via majestic engineering, namely by LAWS. But since the universe never existed once, thus the laws also never existed. Here, you have to say that LAWS occured - and the universe took form from the formless. How else!?How far am I from the first cosmological recording?3. Next, as pivotal cosmological examples, what would you nominate as the first product which emerged from those laws? How about Light as the primordial force product?And when you get to the stars, if you said they were inumerable and incalcuable, as the grains of sands, it would not be a bad description or vary from today's science - what do you think? Or feel free to nominate a better ancient introduction of what became known as COSMOLOGY?

The BBT cannot apply as a possibility. Its ok to use it as a placebo of what we do not know, but the buck stops strictly therein.The BBT theory relies on a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity, which expanded/went BANG! But being a lone entity with nothing else around to interact with - no action can occur. It takes two to tango applies.This says the BBT is only possible if the first entity was a minimum of a duality construct, each part pre-programmed to ID the other counterpart, and an external, precedent trigger factor impacting. Else all science goes south.

on Day 4, after the Earth is in place......is a less accurate description of what we know from science. No?Welcome back, Joseph!

quote:

---

on Day 4, after the Earth is in place......

​

is a less accurate description of what we know from science. No?

---

You are referring to an embarrassing branch of European Christianity's reading of the Hebrew bible. The text requires input and is deceptively simple.Prior to the creational cosmic days, the text lists a host of seperation factors, such as seperation of light from darkness; day from night; and water from land. These are anticipatory actions of forthcoming life, and account for billions and millions of years respectively.Further, the creational days cannot account for 24 hour days. See the 4th day - it says the sun's luminosity was yet not focused on the earth, thus no 24 hour can be deduced or applied here. Also, the Hebrew Calendar, perhaps the most accurate and oldest active one, begins 'AFTER' the creational days.Genesis does not say the earth is 6000 years old, nor that humans are that old. It relates only to speech endowed humans being 6000 years old. Do you have a 'NAME' older than 6000 - you should have millions?

Let me know if you decide to answer my question - How does your system deal with the threat of teaching popular misconceptions?

That's irrelevant.An alternative to creationism is big bang cosmology.I've no idea why you think I would need to explain it to people in black and white times.

Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?Ok, I guess any exam on the universe's cosmology would include:Q. Is the universe finite or infinite?Q: Which is the first recording the universe is finite?Q: Name three factors which had to occur before life emerged?Q: List the main life form groups by their terrain habitat and by protocol of their appearence on earth?Q: Which document first said the stars are innumerable and unaccountable?Q: Which is the only scripture which did not subscribe to a flat earth premise?

quote:

---

How would you give your cosmology lecture 3,500 years ago

​

That's irrelevant.

---

So how would folk understand you 3,500 years from now?

That's irrelevant.An alternative to creationism is big bang cosmology.I've no idea why you think I would need to explain it to people in future times.

Humans ability to speak is many times older than 6000 years old. We're talking greater than 100,000 years older.

Hows about this wayOk moses let me tell you how i made this universe.Day 1 i snapped my fingers and all the energy and matter and space where made
Then i waited a few billion years for all the matter to condense in to stars and planets
Roughly 4.5 billion years ago this little planet formed orbiting this little a billion years later i made the first life on this planet it was to small for you to see with your naked eye then i waited and life grew and diversified every generation was a bit different like you are a bit different from your mother and father. Then finally a few hundred thousand years ago the first intelligent life formed your ancestors and i guided them a bit trying to teach them right from wrong ....Was that too hard to tell that he had to lie to moses and tell him well genesis ???

Or to put what Frako's telling IamJoseph into NT verbage ("spiritual milk" for those not yet ready for "spiritual meat", just as one does not feed a newborn baby meat): a pre-scientific people cannot understand "scientific meat", so a more simplified form, "scientific milk" if you would, would be more useful for imparting at least some understanding. Kind of like adults using fanciful stories to explain to young children where babies come from (eg, storks, cabbage patches) in which the important teaching is not the technical details, but rather the message of the parents' love for each other and for their children -- which is how I would understand Genesis, that the scientific details were not important, but rather WhoDunIt.An example would be the scene in "The Sand Pebbles" where Engineman Steve McQueen is teaching coolie Mako the steam/water cycle of the San Pablo's boiler system. As Mako was trying to understand the new revelation that water and steam are the same thing, McQueen's explanation of water being "stim sleeping" did the trick.Similarly, in Air Force tech school, one course started with the instructor telling us that he was about to lie to us and he pointed out what that lie was. That lie was a definition that we were starting out with, so that mid-way through that course when we had learned enough, we could understand the truth.Another effect that appears is that even if you tell a pre-scientific people the actual scientific truth (feed them scientific meat), they will still understand it in their pre-scientific terms. For example, there's a degenerative brain disease, kuru, in New Guinea which is transmitted through cannibalism. According to an account I read in the 1980's, the natives believed that it was caused by evil spirits while the doctors were trying to tell them what was really causing it and how to avoid it. As a final argument, scientists had natives view the infectious agent, a prion, under the microscope. Instead of accepting what the scientists were trying to tell them, this convinced the natives even more that evil spirits were to blame, because now they've seen those evil spirits with their own eyes.If you can find a copy of a tape of Orson Scott Card's Secular Humanist Revival Meeting, he offers a reading of Genesis "if Moses could have understood the wonderous vision that was shown him." The refrain (changed in its final form):

quote:

---

The strong nuclear force holds tight.
The weak nuclear force hangs on.
The electro-magnetic force shines so bright as if to say "It is good."
And gravity ... it just sits and sucks.

---

quote:

---

Ok moses let me tell you how i made this universe.

​

Day 1 i snapped my fingers and all the energy and matter and space where made

---

My reading of Genesis says it took billions [separation of light] and millions of years [separation of water from and on this planet]. Which version are you quoting?Understand there are only two options as viable and credible for the emergence of the universe. One of them is Creationism. I know of no aternatives to it - do you? Someone suggested cosmology - which is an ubsurd premise, being part of Creationism.

quote:

---

Humans ability to speak is many times older than 6000 years old. We're talking greater than 100,000 years older.

---

I'll settle for a 'NAME' more than 6000. Never mind any nations, cities, wars, kings, etc. Never mind the evidence is eerily aligned with Genesis - to the year and day! Wow - what a fluke, no?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.