Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And moving those five feet would not have caused a noticeable shift in the crossing.In moving however far he moved, there was a point at which he only had to move 5 feet.
Really? If I'm standing almost directly between two trees 8 feet apart, the angle created between the trees and me is almost 180 degrees.Distance has nothing to do with angles.
Could you please answer the question?This shows indeed that the original study has not been duplicated. However, it also suggests at the end that homogenization may be bad for another reason.
I told you I was guessing.
Uh huh. The JREF prize originally started in 1964.Long before the internet age. And I was busy doing other things.
Which is precisely why, especially in science class, we should be teaching the science that has the strongest support, consensus, and evidence. We don't teach the Luminiferous aether theory. Why should we teach YECism?The problem comes from "teachers" saying "here is my personal opinion. It is fact, and if you think differently, you're wrong and will flunk my class and ruin your future."
Creationism belongs in history class, not science class.The problem comes from "teachers" saying "here is my personal opinion. It is fact, and if you think differently, you're wrong and will flunk my class and ruin your future."
This isn't even remotely true. The idea of a worldwide flood 4004 years ago has been falsified. The evidence comes from geology, archeology, history, even genetics.Late to the conversation, so this may be off the current topic, but I wanted to throw my opinion in for the original post-
Science should be taught in science classes... it's not a place for unverifiable dogma. But, this includes the big bang theory and abiogenesis and universal common ancestry. Some people may put their faith in such ideas... but they are exactly no more observable, verifiable, or falsifiable than any given story of creation.
Maybe, but we should be teaching the ideas that have the greatest amount of positive evidence, regardless of whether that idea makes some people uncomfortable.If I were to teach a science class covering these topics, I would present the actual measurable observations we can document and suggest that "some people attribute this to one of a few processes (singularities exploding, other universes forming a new, expanding "universe bubble", etc.), while others attribute the results of these observations to the act of a creator." Period.
Don't dogmatically claim one possible interpretation to be "unquestionable fact" and the rest to be "wrong answers" because that is not the purpose of science. Good science doesn't inherently discredit ideas that make people uncomfortable or give blanket acceptance to ideas that fit our preconceptions.
Should we really be discussing "theories" that have, for example, no positive evidence of their own but exist solely on the claimed negative evidence for something else?A proper scientist will admit "we can not get conclusive evidence for what happened. Here are possible theories."
Very well, and since you ask, I wouldn't be in favor of teaching the general point behind creationism--and no particular slant on that subject--but not without teaching evolution as well.The point of this thread is to ask those who want creationism taught in schools how they would go about doing it, and which version they would choose.
This isn't even remotely true. The idea of a worldwide flood 4004 years ago has been falsified. The evidence comes from geology, archeology, history, even genetics.
Maybe, but we should be teaching the ideas that have the greatest amount of positive evidence, regardless of whether that idea makes some people uncomfortable.
Should we really be discussing "theories" that have, for example, no positive evidence of their own but exist solely on the claimed negative evidence for something else?
No, it isn't.1- GOSH this new site format is hard to avoid all the pop up ads...
2- i agree that ideas with 0 positive evidence should not be in our science classes. This includes the big bang theory (which is physically impossible as a universal singularity would have infinite mass and therefore no amount of force could allow anything with mass to escape it)
abiogenesis, and the concept of a universal common ancestor.
I'm down with macroevolution... dog breeding totally exists. But to suggest dogs and roses come from the same ancestor requires a bit more proof than the atheist version of "goddidit" ("well, we don't know HOW, but it could have happened somehow over billions and billions of years" no evidence required)
What would be the positive evidence for a designer?1-The whole bible (such as the flood) doesn't necessarily have to be taught in order to acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer of some sort.
And yet there is positive evidence for the Big Bang. CMB and differences between early galaxies and older ones are just two examples.2- i agree that ideas with 0 positive evidence should not be in our science classes. This includes the big bang theory (which is physically impossible as a universal singularity would have infinite mass and therefore no amount of force could allow anything with mass to escape it),
Dog breeding is an example of micro evolution, not macro evolution. But since you brought it up, if 1+1=2, what prevents 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10?abiogenesis, and the concept of a universal common ancestor.
I'm down with macroevolution... dog breeding totally exists.
You do realize that the last universal common ancestor for dogs and roses was likely a single-celled organism that lived 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, right? It wasn't a rose with fur or a dog with leaves for ears, right?But to suggest dogs and roses come from the same ancestor requires a bit more proof than the atheist version of "goddidit" ("well, we don't know HOW, but it could have happened somehow over billions and billions of years" no evidence required)
The trouble with this entire argument, is that there are different ways to view reality.
All my books about volcanoes say that the eruption of Tambora was in 1815 and the 'year without a summer' was 1816. What is your source for the building of the First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY?There may have been 2. I don't l know. I am certain of the year because it stopped the building of First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY, which was built by 1812 or so.
In fact the angle is about 0.9°. You do it by 2×pi×r. The circumference of a circle with a radius of 500 ft is 3142 ft, so the length of a degree on the circumference is 3142 ft/360 = 8.7 ft; therefore the angle made by 8 feet is 8/8.7 ~ 0.9°. However, your essential point is correct; distance does make a great difference to the angle.And moving those five feet would not have caused a noticeable shift in the crossing.
Really? If I'm standing almost directly between two trees 8 feet apart, the angle created between the trees and me is almost 180 degrees.
If I'm 500 ft from those same trees, the angle thus created is only a few degrees.
The "to me" part is why we are approaching 1000 posts.All this stuff is, to me, woo.
The records of the church, and the newspapers of the era.All my books about volcanoes say that the eruption of Tambora was in 1815 and the 'year without a summer' was 1816. What is your source for the building of the First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY?
http://kenbehrens.com/Ancient Technology.pdfAm I supposed to just pull your research out of thin air or would you care to give me a link or two?
On what do you base these claims?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?