If creationism was ever taught in the science class.

[Naraoia]

Hahah, I can imagine AV in a college-level science class.

I can't

 

[Split Rock]

AVET came up with some good test questions... give him some credit.
Let me try to answer them:

Example test:

1. Why did God create the universe in the order that He did?
   Because He wanted to do it that way/ Because He wanted to test our faith.
   
   
2. What did God create on the 5th day? 3rd day? 7th day?
   5th day: the platypus
   3rd day: the Beasts of the field, whales, satyrs, and unicorns.
   7th day: Trick question! He rested (because He was reeeel tired).
   
   
3. How many firmaments are there? Name them, and list at least three things each one contains.
   Firmament 1: Atmosphere
   Firmament 2: The Canopy layer
   Firmament 3: Heaven
   
   
4. What is the scientific term for the Creation?
   Psuedoscience?
   
   
5. What is the Biblical term for the Creation?
   The Creation
   
   
6. Name the constellations in order, starting with Virgo, and explain how they relate to the plan of salvation.
   I have no idea how this relates to creationism, and will not even hazard a guess.
   
   
7. Explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not apply in Genesis 1.
   Because there was no death and no decay!
   
   
8. Why was there darkness for three hours during Jesus' crucifixion?
   Cause God was weaping.
   
   
9. What major scientific law was instituted in Genesis 2:1-2?
   All of them (except the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
   
   
10. What is the formula for Angular Momentum? How does it keep the earth in orbit around the sun? What verse in Colossians supports it?
    I still insist the sun is in the firmament with the moon and the earth does not move! Show me a Bible verse that says different!!
    
    
11. Show the major difference between the Big Bang or Solid State paradigms viz-a-viz the
    Creation in terms of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
    An Apple.
    
    
12. Why can stars thousands of light years away be seen?
    Cause God made the light "in transit" to test our faith.
    
    
13. Explain terra aqua - and how terra firma could come from it.
    By way of alchemy (Behe claims it is science).
    
    
14. Explain what is going to happen to the elements according to the Apostle Peter.
    They will implode.
    
    
15. Explain the earth being "without form and void." What was the Holy Spirit [specifically] doing here in Genesis 1:2, and what science is that associated with today?
    Forming matter from non-matter. Associated with Astrology (Behe claims it is science).
    

How did I do?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

*empirical

And math is a concept. You must first assume math exists, and that the Universe operates in a mathematical formula, otherwise it is simply good for current practical application, as are any scientific theories. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Szians r evl," or anything like that, just that no, it can't actually be thought out by anyone. If you were starting from the ground up with no knowledge of anyone else, math wouldn't be your first assumption, and in the future, we may be called morons for using it, in favour of , skabla, or booblycobble, or some other concept I have no basis of, same way as if you went back a few thousand years (assuming you could speak the language), and tried to teach biology to a Sumerian, he might have a hard time understanding anything you're saying.

This entire paragraph is a tangent that has nothing to do with what you quoted. Please restate or clarify the meaning of this paragraph so that it has something to do with what you quoted.

Not necessarily, the people who memorize the basics can better apply them to the more complex theories and fields.

We're talking about regurgitating answers, which doesn't work in a university setting. Obviously knowing basic concepts of the field being tested is useful, but as I said, trying to just throw some answers down on a test doesn't really work. Memorization is useless without understanding.

You couldn't be a nuclear physicist if you were always counting on your fingers.

You'd be suprised. I know at least one theoretical physicist who can't do basic multiplication, but who will drink you under the table, and THEN destroy you with calculations you never even imagined before.

The farther you go, the more assumptions you must make about past "knowledge."

I don't know what this means. Science doesn't make any 'assumptions' about 'past knowledge', it deals only with things that it can measure in the now. Are some assumptions made? Yes. But they are not made randomly, or to make things fit a preset paradigm.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

How did I do?

F--

 

[Nathan Poe]

One simple question --- this one --- and if this forum is any indication of how you would respond, every single one of you would fail.

Including yourself. What was the point of that question again?

Example test:

"Example test"? Atrocious grammar -- reason # 376 why you're unqualified to teach, AV.

1. Why did God create the universe in the order that He did?
2. What did God create on the 5th day? 3rd day? 7th day?
3. How many firmaments are there? Name them, and list at least three things each one contains.
4. What is the scientific term for the Creation?
5. What is the Biblical term for the Creation?
6. Name the constellations in order, starting with Virgo, and explain how they relate to the plan of salvation.
7. Explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics did not apply in Genesis 1.
8. Why was there darkness for three hours during Jesus' crucifixion?
9. What major scientific law was instituted in Genesis 2:1-2?
10. What is the formula for Angular Momentum? How does it keep the earth in orbit around the sun? What verse in Colossians supports it?
11. Show the major difference between the Big Bang or Solid State paradigms viz-a-viz the
    Creation in terms of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
12. Why can stars thousands of light years away be seen?
13. Explain terra aqua - and how terra firma could come from it.
14. Explain what is going to happen to the elements according to the Apostle Peter.
15. Explain the earth being "without form and void." What was the Holy Spirit [specifically] doing here in Genesis 1:2, and what science is that associated with today?

1. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
2. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
3. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
4. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
5. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
6. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
7. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
8. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
9. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
10. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
11. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
12. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
13. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
14. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.
15. The Bible said so -- accept it unquestioningly or go to Hell.

 

[Split Rock]

F--

You have to do better than that. What was wrong with my answers????

 

[Split Rock]

What would end of year tests contain? would students still get a grade even if they knew no science?
or must they learn about science and just show a belief in a creation? can they reject a creation?
would teaching creation and science both get equal time? or would science get priority?

Could someone please tell us what could be expected of students,
after all, if you advocate something, you must know what you're advocating.

Here are some questions that can be discussed in creationism class:

1. How many species were on the ark?

2. Did dinosaurs survive The Flood? If so, why are they extinct?

3. Why did Adam and Eve eat food in the Garden if they could not die?

4. How can we define "Kind" so that humans are a separate "Kind," but all cats are one "Kind?"

5. How can we define "Information" to make it impossible for evolution to casue an increase in "Information?"

6. How can we demonize anyone who accepts evolution by associating it with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao?

7. How can we associate evolution with everything we think is bad, like abortion, bestiality, patricide, madricide, infanticide, homosexuality, drug abuse, prostitution, rape, murder, incest, voting democratic, naziism, plagarism, communism, humanism, atheism, etc.

8. Should people who teach evolution be tarred and feathered, or just glued and feathered (to humiliate them, just like Jesus would do)?

9. Is evolution the Great Apostasy?

10. Was evolution first created by SATAN during the building of the Tower of Babel?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You have to do better than that. What was wrong with my answers????

Oh, sorry, I was going by the creationist "It's wrong because me an' god say so, that's why, lol." grading system.

 

[Vene]

We're talking about regurgitating answers, which doesn't work in a university setting. Obviously knowing basic concepts of the field being tested is useful, but as I said, trying to just throw some answers down on a test doesn't really work. Memorization is useless without understanding.

You have no idea how often my professors say just that. Actually, you might. But those who don't take science courses might not realize how much we're encouraged to go beyond just pure memorization and regurgitation.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You have no idea how often my professors say just that. Actually, you might. But those who don't take science courses might not realize how much we're encouraged to go beyond just pure memorization and regurgitation.

I do. In my igneous and metamorphic petrology class, one of the girls would make flashcards of every single thing covered in class, and studied them constantly. If you took the cards, picked a random one and asked her the question on it, she could spit out the answer word for word from the card. She averaged 19% on the 3 midterms. She could describe a thin section of a rock perfectly, all textures, minerals, she could define the proceses that caused every texture. But if you asked her how that rock formed, the sequence of events, she was completely stumped.


In all fairness to her, the class average was only 48%, but still. Understanding and being able to apply what you've learned is so much more important than knowing what the book says. AV and Dad could do so well for themselves if they would learn that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now you can regurgitate even more easily without having to think about what you were taught.

Question: How old is the earth?
Reguritation: [currently] 4.57 billion years.

Question: How old is the universe?
Reguritation: [currently] 13.7 billion years.

Question: How many planets in our solar system?
Reguritation: [currently] 8

Question: How many elements on the Periodic Table?
Reguritation: [currently either] 117 or 118

Question: What is 5 times 4?
Regurgitation: 20

Question: Do you take this woman to be your lawfully-wedded wife ... to cherish ...'till death do you part?
Regurgitation: [currently] I do.

And if you ever get sick of regurgitating all the time, just take the regurgitated suggestion: quit school.

But those who don't take science courses might not realize how much we're encouraged to go beyond just pure memorization and regurgitation.

Apparantly, those who never went to college at all don't realize it either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Methodology is the main focus of high-level tests, not simply regurgitation like your poor education was.

So you divide learning up into two groups: methodology and regurgitation. Is that correct? Which comes first?

If I ask you your name, will you regurgitate an answer?

Try that at university. You will fail every science class you take.

I see you guys' failure rate at rote memorization as well.

 

[TheManeki]

If I ask you your name, will you regurgitate an answer?

AV, I find the direction you've been heading in this thread very interesting. From your posts, it seems that you equate knowledge with recalling discrete, unconnected snippets of memorized facts. (I bet you're aces at Trivial Pursuit.) Others in this thread (including myself), however, equate knowledge with a deeper understanding of the field. This looks like a nice microcosm of the contrasting approaches to science in our forum.

Let's look at your question about names. You can know someone's name, but that doesn't necessarily mean you know the person. Being able to regurgitate facts you memorized is analogous to knowing someone's name. But the approach to knowledge that I and others take is like getting to know someone more personally.

Perhaps if you had a deeper understanding of science beyond regurgitation then you'd not have a problem with the whole Pluto issue, for example.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps if you had a deeper understanding of science beyond regurgitation then you'd not have a problem with the whole Pluto issue, for example.

Pluto can take a hike. I will no longer regurgitate Pluto when asked to regurgitate the names of the planets in our solar system.

 

[TheManeki]

Pluto can take a hike. I will no longer regurgitate Pluto when asked to regurgitate the names of the planets in our solar system.

As evangelical scholar Mark Knoll once wrote, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind."

 

[AV1611VET]

As evangelical scholar Mark Knoll once wrote, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind."

Regurgitating Mark Knoll now, are we?

 

[milkyway]

AV, I find the direction you've been heading in this thread very interesting. From your posts, it seems that you equate knowledge with recalling discrete, unconnected snippets of memorized facts. (I bet you're aces at Trivial Pursuit.) Others in this thread (including myself), however, equate knowledge with a deeper understanding of the field. This looks like a nice microcosm of the contrasting approaches to science in our forum.

Let's look at your question about names. You can know someone's name, but that doesn't necessarily mean you know the person. Being able to regurgitate facts you memorized is analogous to knowing someone's name. But the approach to knowledge that I and others take is like getting to know someone more personally.

Perhaps if you had a deeper understanding of science beyond regurgitation then you'd not have a problem with the whole Pluto issue, for example.

Very good point, similar to one made by physicist Richard Feynman:

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."

I guess that if you take the bible as your sole source of 'knowledge' about the world, you don't need to know anything. Why bother to think if you're happy to let others do it for you?!

 

[TheManeki]

Regurgitating Mark Knoll now, are we?

Unfortunately, I've directly observed what he is talking about all too often. Mark just happens to express the sentiment the most concisely.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that if you take the bible as your sole source of 'knowledge' about the world, you don't need to know anything.

That's bologna --- even I don't do that.

I don't look to the Bible for the latest facts on Oceanography, nor do I look to the Bible for information on how to drive.

Looking in the Bible for information on how to build a car is like looking in Bill Gate's diary for information on how to build a computer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, I've directly observed what he is talking about all too often. Mark just happens to express the sentiment the most concisely.

To be honest, I have no idea who Mark Knoll is; and I have no idea why you regur... er... brought him up.