Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 16 of 51 (106519)
05-08-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Darwin Storm
04-08-2004 8:16 PM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
Educators may get off in thinking secondary education science course are really science. They are mostly history of science and pre-science indoctrination.
It may be hard to even define "teaching science." If fact, the very word is so ancient it preceeds and pre-exists what we infer by it today.
What science teach ought to be doing, if we were to find them actually "teaching" science itself, is applying the scientific method to a serirs of inquiries which they themselves may have devised.
Science is hardly informing young people about the meaning and usage of information on the pe iodic chart for instance. It is very much about the empiricism that deferentiates between believing thinks and the producing of concrete measueable arguments to contest or support those ideas.
In this light, it seems reasonable to suggest that science instruction best serves the student in the comtradting of Rationalism with itself, on the philosophical level.
Im=n fact, the same intuition which developes sociological, moral
and even interpretation of scripture itself is used by science people. The very meaning of hypothesis is to guess possible answers.
Since people may come with preconceived hypothesis about creation of living things, it dorsn't seem so ea ily ruled out, at least at the hypothesis stage.
In fact, it seems bad science to start with just the hypothesisbwhich will be hopefully supported throughout the years by all the readings, opinions, and reports of hard evidence on hand.
At the same time, yes, I think evolution is correct, it represents the process of the Almighty Universal Power acting through magnificent Natural Laws. But, in the classroom, we are socializing the student and paid fot his enculturation, not indoctrination, whether science in this public school realm or religious in what he may bring with him into the classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-08-2004 8:16 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2004 2:54 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 19 by Beercules, posted 05-08-2004 6:19 PM kofh2u has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 17 of 51 (106526)
05-08-2004 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by kofh2u
05-08-2004 1:24 AM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
kofh2u writes:
quote:
In this light, it seems reasonable to suggest that science instruction best serves the student in the comtradting of Rationalism with itself, on the philosophical level.
You're confusing science with the philosophy of science.
While I certainly agree that teaching science well requires instruction in the philosophy of science, the typical high school science class isn't really the place for it since there is so little structure to the science curriculum at the high school level. There needs to be some explanation about the scientific method, the need for observational rigor, etc., it is much better appreciated when carried out through lab experiments that show why such methods work.
At this level, you can then get on with the fundamentals of the basic fields of chemistry, physics, and biology without having to constantly to reinvent the wheel. Asking, "But why?" is a wonderful thing in science, but there are some things that should be shortcut through in order to get to the point. That is, the fundamentals are tools to help us examine larger things. If we're going to get to the larger things in the brief amount of time we have, we shouldn't get bogged down in proving the tools.
We already do this in mathematics. You don't start teaching math by introducing the ZFC axioms of set theory to six-year-olds. You give them visceral comprehensions of number and go from there. It's more important for the typical person to know how numbers function than it is to know where numbers come from.
When discussing the orbital levels of atoms, we don't really have the time to go into great detail about why the oxygen atom is at a lower energy state of 1s 7p rather than 2s 6p. Better to talk about what this means with how oxygen behaves and why it is such an effective oxidizing agent.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kofh2u, posted 05-08-2004 1:24 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kofh2u, posted 05-08-2004 5:13 PM Rrhain has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 18 of 51 (106646)
05-08-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rrhain
05-08-2004 2:54 AM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
Well. I can't say I disagree.
As a science person myself, I can appreciate the compartmentalism by disciplines. But, if a community, such as Ga. or Kansas, had not yet resolved the issue, that empificism and the traditionalism of Stoicism didn't quite agree with one another, I could understand.
It even seems important, maybe, to intellectually re-visiting the days of Galilleo and put things into perspective.
Again, service to the community is a prerequisite to a public education, never to suggest a bending of truth to meet erroneous assumptions, however.
The scant material to teach bible creationism suggests a very short addition to the curriculum. There is nothing, really, in the bible much to be covered.
Creationist really want teachers to teach evolution, emphasizing areas that are not yet explanable by the theory, and suggest that evolution is questionable. Now that I oppose.
The material should be presented without indoctrination.
And, if the church people are hard pressed, the bible has very little say about evolution or ceationism, beyond Genesis. Genesis one is a very short number of passages. Time is hardly the issue in fitting the curriculum to this material and the accompaning assumptions of some church peeple.
The church people might even oppose some of the bible verses which tend to support evolution.
Genesis 6
The Flood
1 When humanoids, early forms of men, began to increase in number on the earth, around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternay Period of the Cenozoic Era, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God, or that line of humanoids which would ultimately branch into the humanity which is yet to come, Homoiousian Men whose mental capability shall correspond, one-to-one, with the Ultimate Reality which we call God, they, hominoids sons, saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, essentially, in this process of adaption to the environmental reality, "My Spirit (evidenced in the Natural Laws governing this world) will not contend with man in this present stage of development forever, for Neanderthal Man is mortal, he dies, is genetically recreated, but improveable through that process by the refining fires of Evolution which I have so devised; his days will be ended in a hundred and twenty thousand years."
4 The Nephilim, great animals of all sorts, Homo Erectus, post-dinosaurs, and such, were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God, Early Homo Sapiens, went into the daughters of men, hominoids such as Neanderthals, and had children by them. They, these children who were the predecessors of Modern Homo Sapiens yet to come, nevertheless, they were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart, that is, his psyche, was only evil, self destructive, and in defiance of the realities of "Father Nature" all the time. 6 The LORD, Father Nature, as we might say, was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain, but, sadly, the axe stands at the tree of life and MUST hack off every branch that has failed to adapt. 7 So, the LORD, "Father Nature," said, metaphorically, "I will wipe from the face of the earth mankind, these lower forms of humanoids, whom I have created, and their conscious thoughts -men and all their conscious awareness of animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air, all memory and every mental abstraction of them, in the mind of these humanoids-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah, the eponym for the whole line of the species Modern Homo Sapiens, found favor in the eyes of the evolutionary process utilized by the LORD, our Universal Reality.
9 This is the account of Noah.
{ Added by AdminSylas. Please do not identify your own text or your own interpretations as quotations from Genesis. You may attempt to argue that this is a plausible interpretation; but you should be careful to distinguish interpretations from quotations. See Message 21 }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-08-2004 07:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2004 2:54 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 6:47 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 21 by AdminSylas, posted 05-08-2004 7:58 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 8:24 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 51 (106661)
05-08-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by kofh2u
05-08-2004 1:24 AM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
I don't understand what you are arguing for. If you agree that the bible is not a science book, why on earth would you waste classroom time discussing it? As I said, religious interpretation of scientific data or theories is completely irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Adding religion contributes absolutely nothing to the understanding of the actual science.
This message has been edited by Beercules, 05-08-2004 05:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kofh2u, posted 05-08-2004 1:24 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 3:22 AM Beercules has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 51 (106669)
05-08-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by kofh2u
05-08-2004 5:13 PM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
Mmmm pardon, Kofh, but if I abused the science of some well known evo scientist on one of these forum boards as you have the Biblical text, the mods would have me on notice in a heartbeat that I either post sensibly or expect to be admonished and warned of corrective action. Believe what you want to believe, but to abuse the Biblical text as you have to argue your position is as much against forum rules as anything any creo has ever been charged with, imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kofh2u, posted 05-08-2004 5:13 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 2:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 51 (106682)
05-08-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by kofh2u
05-08-2004 5:13 PM


Warning to kofh2u
kofh2u writes:
The material should be presented without indoctrination.
And, if the church people are hard pressed, the bible has very little say about evolution or ceationism, beyond Genesis. Genesis one is a very short number of passages. Time is hardly the issue in fitting the curriculum to this material and the accompaning assumptions of some church peeple.
The church people might even oppose some of the bible verses which tend to support evolution.
Genesis 6
The Flood
1 When humanoids, early forms of men, began to increase in number on the earth, around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternay Period of the Cenozoic Era, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God, or that line of humanoids which would ultimately branch into the humanity which is yet to come, Homoiousian Men whose mental capability shall correspond, one-to-one, with the Ultimate Reality which we call God, [... rest of nonsense snipped ...]
kofh2u; you are in violation of forum guideline 7, which states
7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
The material which you identify as being from Genesis is not sustainable as a translation, or as a paraphrase of Genesis.
You should identify such things as an interpretation or exegesis, and not as a passage from the bible. Your original post on this was acceptable as far as I am concerned, as the interpretative sections were plainly indicated by parentheses.
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-08-2004 07:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kofh2u, posted 05-08-2004 5:13 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 1:40 AM AdminSylas has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 22 of 51 (106721)
05-09-2004 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by AdminSylas
05-08-2004 7:58 PM


Re: Warning to kofh2u
Oooops,
I posted a typed out set ofverses without reading them. Yes, the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation separate
the interpretation from the rest of the text by parentheses.
Of course, for the astitude reader here on your forum, I am sure they caught it as did you.
I shall be more carefulin future posts.
Gen. 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
Gen. 7:6 And Noah, (the first of the Modern Homo Sapiens), was six hundred (thousand) years old when the flood of waters (of his species) was upon the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AdminSylas, posted 05-08-2004 7:58 PM AdminSylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminSylas, posted 05-09-2004 2:07 AM kofh2u has replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 51 (106723)
05-09-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by kofh2u
05-09-2004 1:40 AM


Re: More warnings to kofh2u.
I gather from your reply that you are citing some text called the Freudian Bible Translation. You are therefore also in violation of forum guideline number 6:
6. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
Your manner of use of this idiotic source is also straying into violations of guidelines 5 and 10.
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
10. Do not cut-n-paste long excerpts into message boxes. Please instead introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
I gather that this material is not on the web. Using it reasonably requires you to type in extracts. However, applying the guidelines in such a case requires you to make some argument in your own words as to why anyone should give this rubbish a moment of attention, or else to summarize the point you are trying to make in your own words, with some kind of argument or justification. Appeal to the authority and wisdom of your source, given its total lack of recognition, is worthless. The source itself gives no arguments; just assertions.
On a distinct matter, the extracts you are citing plainly show this source to be ridiculous. Do yourself a favour and throw it away.
Cheers -- AdminSylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 1:40 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 2:49 AM AdminSylas has replied
 Message 33 by SRO2, posted 05-09-2004 7:38 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 24 of 51 (106724)
05-09-2004 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
05-08-2004 6:47 PM


FreudianBible Interpretations
Sorry buz,
I posted a correspondence of the from a friend who was discussing these verses with me. He did not place the Freudian Bible Interpretations in parentheses as you can read here, below.
The concise and direct interpretation, printed along with the KJV, but clearly in brackets, demonstrates wisdom by its brevity.
Whereas others might write long expositions and accompaning argument of support for their own particular conceits, the Freudian Bible just says what it means, right there in the context. Like read this:
Genesis 6
The Flood
1 When...
... (humanoids, early forms of)... men, began to increase in number on the earth,...
... (around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternay Period of the Cenozoic Era),...
... and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God,...
... (or that line of humanoids which would ultimately branch into the humanity which is yet to come, Homoiousian Men whose mental capability shall correspond, one-to-one, with the Ultimate Reality which we call God),...
... they,...
... (hominoids sons),...
... saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said,...
... (essentially, in this process of adaption to the environmental reality),...
... "My Spirit...
... (evidenced in the Natural Laws governing this world)...
... will not contend with man...
... (in this present stage of development)...
... forever, for...
... (Neanderthal Man is mortal, he dies, is genetically recreated, but improveable through that process by the refining fires of Evolution which I have so devised);...
... his days will be...
... (ended in)...
a hundred and twenty...
(thousand years)."
4 The Nephilim,...
... (great animals of all sorts, Homo Erectus, post-dinosaurs, and such),...
... were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God,...
.... (Early Homo Sapiens),...
... went into the daughters of men,...
... (hominoids such as Neanderthals),...
.. and had children by them. They, ...(these children who were the predecessors of Modern Homo Sapiens yet to come, nevertheless),... they were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination...
.... (of the thoughts)...
of his heart,...
... (that is, his psyche),...
... was only evil,...
... (self destructive, and in defiance of the realities of "Father Nature")...
... all the time. 6 The LORD,... (Father Nature, as we might say),... was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain,...
... (but, sadly, the axe stands at the tree of life and MUST hack off every branch that has failed to adapt).
7 So, the LORD,...
... ("Father Nature,")...
... said,... (metaphorically),... "I will wipe from the face of the earth mankind,...
... (these lower forms of humanoids),...
... whom I have created,...
... (and their conscious thoughts)...
... and all... (their conscious awareness of)... animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air..., (all memory and every mental abstraction of them, in the mind of these humanoids)... for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah,...
... (the eponym for the whole line of the species Modern Homo Sapiens),...
... found favor in the eyes of... (the evolutionary process utilized by the)... LORD,... (our Universal Reality).
9 This is the account of Noah.
Is this more clear as to my point that the Bible may well support Evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 6:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 25 of 51 (106727)
05-09-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminSylas
05-09-2004 2:07 AM


source material was offered
Thanks for your opinion as regards the ridiculous interpretation of the verses.
I am uncertain about your specifics in regard to the absurdities to which you refer.
I am not unaware that these concise, in context, direct, and consistent interpretations (throughout thd whole of the Old and New Testaments as far ad I can see) is "different."
As regards the source of these quotes, nine verses in the case to which we are discussing, perhaps too many.
But, I must point out that I did previously reference these quotes and credit them, including the publisher address. I was informed by another Admins that this was considered advertising and I was told to drop the referenced address.
The Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation,
PO 52006
Philadelphia, Pa
19115

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AdminSylas, posted 05-09-2004 2:07 AM AdminSylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AdminSylas, posted 05-09-2004 11:58 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 26 of 51 (106731)
05-09-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Beercules
05-08-2004 6:19 PM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
You sound like a reasonable person.
The answer as to "why" a person would teach from scripture in a science classroom is that Georgia and Kansas mandated it, by law.
So, let's look at just what the bible says, as a hypothesis, concerning the subject of how man finds himself the dominant life form, how the earth came into existence, etc. Why? Its the law, now.
The question is: Why MUST we read tgis bible and MAKE it say things which are only interpretation STILL hugely dupported by millions of people. Is truth a democratic discipline? Does tradition force the reading, insist on a spin, obligate the reader to read what indoctrinations have convinced many people to be the correct readinds?
1) The seven periods called, in English, "days" are really defined in the Hebrew word for day "yom," as any duration of time.
2) The text of Genesis 1:14 says tgat the 24 hour day was not even created until the fourth yom!
Gen. 1:14 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs ( or symbolic references), and for (the four) seasons, and for (24 hour) days, and (365 day) years:
3) There is an unanswered set of verses in Genesis 6 concerning some event of hybrid sexual mating between different types of men. Science would say different species of men. Anthropologists DO say, mating between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens is a strong possiblity.
Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (pre-Homo Sapiens) came in unto the daughters of men (Neanderthal), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids leading to Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.
4) Then, we understand from Geology tgat the Universe seems to have gone through seven steps of gradual change differentiated into what they call the SEVEN ERAS. Coinidence, or great intuition?
Gen. 1:5 And God (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first yom, (the Azoic Era). (1)
Gen. 1:8 And God (The Universal Force) called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second yom, (the Archeozoic Era). (2)
Gen. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day, (the Proterozoic Era). (3)
Gen. 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth yom, (the Paleozoic Era). (4)
Get my point? If they pass the law, then teach it with out indoctrinatinb that science is rigth, or that some millions of old people say the bible says its wrong.
(ps... the verses come from the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Beercules, posted 05-08-2004 6:19 PM Beercules has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Beercules, posted 05-09-2004 12:52 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 8:29 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 27 of 51 (106785)
05-09-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
05-07-2004 8:44 PM


Turn around is fair play!
Turn around is fair play, is it not?
Creationist agree with the scientific facts, they argi=ue that the meanings of those facts are given secular and even atheistic "spin."
I have much to "turn around." The facts are that the Bible spins easily to support Evolution, and way more rationally.
The point I was making in this "honesty" thing is that the word "day" in Hebrew, does not mean an exact 24 hour day at all.
Honesty in presenting would infer that this point be made to the student of Genesis.
It is a stretch to require "day" to mean 24 hours, regardless of the millions of Fundamentalists who INSIST that "day" means 24 hours.
As in Science, there is no room for a democratic vote on facts. Old science that fails us must be discarded. Old "Yoms" that can not be supported coherently must be re-evaluated. God said it. The 24 hour "dy" wasn't around UNTIL the the fifth day of his cretive works. And, even then, that 24 hour day certainly is as distinct from the other uses of the Hebrew word "yom" which repetitiously is applied in the literary style as introductory, evenings and mornings, to the sequence of events.
Whether we agree, honesty is the best policy, for this is an honest observation.
Day, it is at least metaphorical, as Peter suggests.
From the Hebrew dictionary, "any extended period of time."
That the text of Genesis itself tells us that the 24 hour day was "invented" during the fourth "DAY."
That prior to the first four uses of this word, the "yoms" (actual Hebrew word) MUST have been different is significant. In fact, real time as we know it seems clear invented after these first four days begin, because the seasons, the days, and the years, and TIMES were then created
If it is mandated to TEACH the writings side by side with the Science, fine. But, as the Creationist argue EXACTLY as I have here, questioning not the science, but the interpretation of the scientists, I suggest FAIRNESS in that I question not the BIBLE but the meaning of those who have maintained ancient interpretations which are clearly not HONEST.
Turn around is fair play, is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2004 8:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 8:39 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 51 (106787)
05-09-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by kofh2u
05-09-2004 2:49 AM


Re: source material was offered
kofh2u writes:
I am not unaware that these concise, in context, direct, and consistent interpretations (throughout thd whole of the Old and New Testaments as far ad I can see) is "different."
If you would like some more opinion, I would describe your reference as "verbose, totally unrelated to context, and inconsistent". But maybe that's just me. On the other hand; I doubt if it is just me.
The real problem is that it is introduced into discussion without any justification or reason to take it seriously. There have been no actual arguments given to support the interpretations; they come across as mere assertion.
But, I must point out that I did previously reference these quotes and credit them, including the publisher address. I was informed by another Admins that this was considered advertising and I was told to drop the referenced address.
The Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation,
PO 52006
Philadelphia, Pa
19115
I have a sneaking feeling that you are just playing stupid here. To spell it out for you.
The proper way to cite a source is with the author, then perhaps the year and the publisher. Giving a business address is not a reference; it is an advertisement.
You should declare your own interest in this reference. Given that it, and you, are from Philadelphia, and given that there is no sign of this anywhere else on the web except as you bring it up here or on theologyweb, and given that the nature of the text we have seem makes it ... unlikely ... that any independent reader could find it persuasive, I suspect you have a direct association with the text. Please declare your own personal connection with this reference. If you are simply an enthusiastic reader, where did you hear about it?
{ Emphasis added in edit. This is the key question kofh2u/David must answer if he is going to continue to refer to this text. }
If this "interpretation" is your own work, then you do not need to reference it, but you do need to give some kind of argument in support of the material.
If this "interpretation" is not your own work, then you need to indicate the author. If it is actually a published book, then your can give the author, the publisher, and the year of publication. Business addresses are not required or appropriate.
If it is an informal private production of some kind; not available through normal sources, then it is a "private communication" or "unpublished manuscript". Again, you need to give the author, by name; not by business address. You also need to be clear on the nature of the document, whether it is a book, or an unpublished manuscript. But in such a case, you most especially need to give some reason of your own for why anyone else should pay it any attention.
Whenever you quote extracts from this, you can cite them as "Freudian Bible, by Fred Nurk" or whatever. But in any case, still need to give some kind of reason for taking it seriously, in your own words.
AdminSylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-13-2004 03:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 2:49 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by SRO2, posted 05-09-2004 12:17 PM AdminSylas has not replied
 Message 31 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 1:30 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 51 (106790)
05-09-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AdminSylas
05-09-2004 11:58 AM


Re: source material was offered
The phrase is actually "turnabout is fair play", not "turnaround is fair play". "Turnabout" would mean each gets a fair chance...I don't know what "turnaround" would imply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AdminSylas, posted 05-09-2004 11:58 AM AdminSylas has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 51 (106792)
05-09-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by kofh2u
05-09-2004 3:22 AM


Re: Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.
quote:
You sound like a reasonable person.
The answer as to "why" a person would teach from scripture in a science classroom is that Georgia and Kansas mandated it, by law.
I understand. Your argument is that since religious education has been required by law anyway, we might as well teach all 3 viewpoints in the science classroom, right?
That is not quite what is going on in Kansas or Georgia, though there have been attempts to do that in the past. However, every single attempt by a school to bring creationism into the classroom has resulted in the Supreme Court declaring it illegal. Creationism is a religion, and the courts have stated religion has no business being taught in the science classroom.
quote:
So, let's look at just what the bible says, as a hypothesis, concerning the subject of how man finds himself the dominant life form, how the earth came into existence, etc. Why? Its the law, now.
Since we both know that teaching religion in science class is illegal, and thus ultimately doomed to being overturned by the Supreme Court, you can't claim it's already a fact of public education. What the bible says is irrelevant, Since we agree that the bible has nothing scientifc to offer, teaching it in science class would be like teaching golf in cooking class.
One other thing to comment on. To clarify on my earlier comment about grasping at straws:
quote:
Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (pre-Homo Sapiens) came in unto the daughters of men (Neanderthal), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids leading to Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.
This is just sad, and a perfect example of grabbing any old explanation to fit the facts. The text says giants, and this deep thinking author decides that must somehow be a reference to Homo Erectus. This is blatent intellectual dishonesty and I find it quite pathetic.
This message has been edited by Beercules, 05-09-2004 11:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 3:22 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kofh2u, posted 05-09-2004 7:26 PM Beercules has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024