If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[Nathan Poe]

I finally figured it out, guys.


The EAC, with the help of their croney scientists, built rocket ship and filled them with the water from the Water Canopy which fell down onto the earth. They gathered it all up and rocketed into the sun, this is why the sun has violent explosions. It's like when fire hisses because you put a little bit of water onto it.

I'm onto you!

Which means you must now be eliminated. An offical EAC ninja will sneak into your house some night and plant explosives into your toothpaste.

 

[joey444]

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

 

[BVZ]

How does the following address the OP:
* The status of Pluto as a planet
* The seaworthyness of the ark

If your aim is to destroy the thread because it threatens your beliefs, you are doing the only thing you can do: Go off topis.

But why would you need to do that if you have a defendable position? Oh, I forgot, you dont.

Address the OP if you can.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post 197 isn't anything but a demonstrably false claim from an old book.

No --- it's a written confession --- signed in precious blood.

[bible]Isaiah 53:1[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't think I'll ever cease to be saddened to see people act out of such blind, unwavering faith in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Beastt]

No --- it's a written confession --- signed in precious blood.

[bible]Isaiah 53:1[/bible]

Based on what, your desire to believe it to be so?

How about some actual evidence? Your desire isn't compelling for me. People have desired to believe a great many demonstrably untrue things for at least as long as people have been able to communicate. A great many have given their lives for their beliefs and have done so from opposing sides of such beliefs. Certainly, most of them held false beliefs. What makes your beliefs different?

 

[AV1611VET]

Address the OP if you can.

I did in [jump=Post #6]Post 6[/jump] --- care to take the final in [jump=Post #75]Post 75[/jump]?

 

[Chalnoth]

I did in [jump=Post #6]Post 6[/jump] --- care to take the final in [jump=Post #75]Post 75[/jump]?

That's a cirriculum, but how would you actually teach it? You utterly failed to explain either law of thermodynamics properly, nor how they fit into your idea of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Based on what, your desire to believe it to be so?

No --- based on written documentation. I didn't think this into existence.

How about some actual evidence?

It's technically called a paper trail --- do an audit.

Your desire isn't compelling for me.

It's not a matter of 'desire' --- it's a matter of 'faith'. When they pressed Jesus to give them evidence-on-the-spot, He refused.

[bible]Matthew 12:38-39[/bible]

People have desired to believe a great many demonstrably untrue things for at least as long as people have been able to communicate.

Including myself at one time --- but I grew up.

A great many have given their lives for their beliefs and have done so from opposing sides of such beliefs. Certainly, most of them held false beliefs. What makes your beliefs different?

The difference is this:

People have given their lives before for things they THOUGHT were true, but no one ever gave his life for something he KNEW was false. Study the lives of the Apostles and what happened to them. If their leader had been fake or non-existent, and they started getting martyred one-by-one; they would have renounced their faith.

That's how the martyr system works: you die for either something you THINK was true, or you die for something you KNOW was true; but you never die for something you know is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a cirriculum, but how would you actually teach it? You utterly failed to explain either law of thermodynamics properly, nor how they fit into your idea of creation.

What do you mean "how would I teach it"? With visual aids. I don't understand your question.

 

[Data]

What do you mean "how would I teach it"? With visual aids. I don't understand your question.

He's asking what on earth would you teach.

My 7th form biology class (senior year at high school) was almost entirely evolution (creationism is unheard of in the rest of the developed world) - there was a huge amount of information on things like genetic drift, sexual selection, allopatric/sympatric speciation, ring species, genetics, phenotypes, mammals/marsupials, the evolution of man, hominid fossils and the tools of early hominids, you name it. A class, an hour and a half long, every day, for a year. And this is only the basics, for a high school class.

What would a ID class be? How could you teach for an hour, let alone 5 minutes? What is there?

 

[Edx]

He's asking what on earth would you teach.

My 7th form biology class (senior year at high school) was almost entirely evolution (creationism is unheard of in the rest of the developed world) - there was a huge amount of information on things like genetic drift, sexual selection, allopatric/sympatric speciation, ring species, genetics, phenotypes, mammals/marsupials, the evolution of man, hominid fossils and the tools of early hominids, you name it. A class, an hour long, every day, for a year. And this is only the basics, for a high school class.?

Wow. I live in the UK, we never got any of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would a ID class be? How could you teach for an hour, let alone 5 minutes? What is there?

First of all, I wouldn't teach Intelligent Design, per se.

My class would be called Biblical Earth Creation.

My teachings would include:

• What was created on what day, as conveyed to us in Genesis 1.
• How this differs with the order as conveyed to us in Evolution.
• The Anthropic Principle
• The Water Canopy, Gap, and Day-Age theories.
• Literal interpretation vs allegorical interpretation.
• How to spot doctrine in the Poetical books.
• The 4 Laws of Thermodynamics
• The 4 Physical Forces of the Universe.
• What "kinds" are in Genesis 1.
• How to read the plan of salvation in the constellations, and knowing which constellation should come first, and why.
• What the Star of Bethlehem was, and the significance of the Sun going dark the day Jesus was Crucified.
• The subliminal portrayals of Jesus' deity in the Old Testament.
• How a 2nd and 3rd dimensions of time could easily explain such things as how prophecy works, and how one day with the Lord can be 1000 years on earth, and how God can hear the prayers of David and myself at the same time, etc.
• et. al.

 

[Beastt]

If you're going to teach what "kinds" were aboard the Ark, are you also going to teach what a "kind" is? I've seen people continuously asked what defines a "kind" as given in the Bible and no one yet has presented any kind of reliable definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're going to teach what "kinds" were aboard the Ark, are you also going to teach what a "kind" is? I've seen people continuously asked what defines a "kind" as given in the Bible and no one yet has presented any kind of reliable definition.

Yes --- a "kind" is an animal that contains all the genetic material (alleles?) for sub-speciation.

 

[Edx]

Yes --- a "kind" is an animal that contains all the genetic material (alleles?) for sub-speciation.

Uh huh. So what animal is an example of this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh huh. So what animal is an example of this?

Actually what I said is (pardon the pun) "kind of" misleading.

No animal had the genetic material locked inside; rather, the speciation is due to genetic entropy.

I believe this is how the argument goes, for example:

The coyote > domestic dog > wolf > dingo.

Thus all Noah would have had to take aboard the Ark is a pair of coyote --- not Spaniels, and Setters, and Pointers, and Terriers, and the Red Wolf, and the Dingo, etc.

Someone suggested that if you kill off all the canines today, except for a few coyote, then in a few short generations you would have dogs, wolves, and dingos again.

I don't know if that's true or not, as the coyotes' genes are not as pure as they were in Noah's time --- it sounds plausible, though.

 

[Chalnoth]

And how, pray tell, is what you've been describing science?

Remember that the scientific method consists of the following parts:
1. Start with a theory. A theory provides a physical explanation that predicts the existence of specific patterns.
2. From the theory, develop a specific hypothesis that can be tested.
3. Perform an experiment that tests the above hypothesis.
4. If the experiment returns a positive result, the evidence for the theory is strengthened. If the experiment returns the opposite result, the theory must be modified.

How does your idea of teaching creation fit into the above?

 

[JohnR7]

there was a huge amount of information on things like genetic drift, sexual selection, allopatric/sympatric speciation, ring species, genetics, phenotypes, mammals/marsupials, the evolution of man, hominid fossils and the tools of early hominids. A class, an hour and a half long, every day, for a year. And this is only the basics, for a high school class.

What does any of this have to do with common ancestor? What is the connection?

you name it

Did they teach you anything about the use of DNA for genealogy? What some people call the out of Africa theory?

 

[Beastt]

Actually what I said is (pardon the pun) "kind of" misleading.

No animal had the genetic material locked inside; rather, the speciation is due to genetic entropy.

I believe this is how the argument goes, for example:

The coyote > domestic dog > wolf > dingo.

Thus all Noah would have had to take aboard the Ark is a pair of coyote --- not Spaniels, and Setters, and Pointers, and Terriers, and the Red Wolf, and the Dingo, etc.

Someone suggested that if you kill off all the canines today, except for a few coyote, then in a few short generations you would have dogs, wolves, and dingos again.

I don't know if that's true or not, as the coyotes' genes are not as pure as they were in Noah's time --- it sounds plausible, though.

What, in your mind, constitutes a "pure" gene as opposed to an impure one?

And dogs are an easy example because most breeds of dog are the result of human manipulation. Most other animals don't offer the same kind of readily available examples of such flexibility. Take the cheetah for instance. It has a build similar to a dog and feet like a dog. Yet many of the other body traits are more consistent with a cat. So is it a dog-kind, a cat-kind or a cheetah-kind and why?