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

[Beastt]

Then what does this thread (of all threads) have to offer you?

Do you not see that having an interest in the teaching of real science gives them all the more reason to be active on a thread such as this?

Your opinion is not a problem --- however, if you came to my class with that attitude --- and stuck to it demonstrably --- I'd fail you in a heartbeat.

In other words, believe what I believe, even if completely devoid of evidence or contrary to the evidence or you fail the class. That in itself is more than sufficient reason to keep the teaching of "creation science", out of science class rooms.

I couldn't care less if you agreed with what I taught --- just learn it --- and learn it quietly --- or pack out.

If that's your attitude about learning then it explains why you believe what you believe. You don't believe in asking questions or taking note when what you're taught runs contrary to logic and reason. You just accept it as fact, move to the next lesson, and demand that everyone else accept it just as you have. Some of us expect truth to make sense. In every scientific discovery in the history of man, it has. Only in religion is the need for reason carelessly dismissed.

And if you want others to learn the way you learn, it might be best to hire a hypnotist to assist you in "preparing" the students. Short of that you might try boot-camp techniques of tearing people down, convincing them they're worthless and feeble, and that only through acceptance of your methods and teachings can they be worthy of holding their head up again.

 

[AV1611VET]

No student would ever take your class. No one wants to be fed lies by a teacher who knows less than the students.

In that case, Jase, care to take my final exam? I'm sure you'll have no trouble with it. In fact, I'll give you two benefits my students wouldn't have: 1) take all the time you want; 2) use Wikipedia, the Bible, whatever you wish (though I'm sure you won't need them).

I'll even grade it for you right here in this forum --- fair enough?

If not --- it's no big deal --- just be careful next time about the ad hominems --- they can come back on you.

Here it is again --- from Post 75 on Page 8:

1. Give the formula for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
2. Give the formula for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
3. Name the Four Physical Forces, in order of their magnitude and influence, beginning at the shortest, and ending at the longest.
4. Show how at least two planets in our solar system (besides the Earth) that demonstrate the Anthropic Principle.
5. Which of the four Physical Forces will God use to terminate His creation, and support it with chapter and verse.
6. Give at least two benefits of the Water Canopy, and support them with drawings.
7. Explain what "kinds" are in Genesis 1.
8. How did Nachmonides demonstrate a 10-dimensional universe, using only Genesis 1?
9. Give at least three ways Adam and Eve were superior to today's race.
10. From an astronomical perspective, why did God cause the Sun to go dark from 12:00 - 15:00?
11. EXTRA CREDIT: Draw one constellation in the Zodiac and show what part it pictographically played in conveying the Plan of Salvation.

You may begin.

 

[Edx]

Explain what "kinds" are in Genesis 1.

haha. No Creationist has ever been able to do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would be the value of embedding science into religion?

One stick is easier to break than two sticks tied together.

Since the two are not mutually exclusive, it is hard to teach one without the other.


As long as you keep the two in perspective:

[bible]2 Corinthians 10:5[/bible]

1 Timothy 6:20

 

[joey444]

One stick is easier to break than two sticks tied together.

Since the two are not mutually exclusive, it is hard to teach one without the other.


As long as you keep the two in perspective:

[bible]2 Corinthians 10:5[/bible]

The two are not mutually exclusive in your own little class. Science does have several problems with the bible, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

The two are not mutually exclusive in your own little class. Science does have several problems with the bible, though.

That's because science has some problems with itself.

Contrary to what you might want to believe, some Scripture can be validated with some Science, and vice-versa; as long as you use the proper tools of Hermeneutics:

• Context
• Language of the Observer
• Law of First Mention
• Subliminal Passages
• Literal vs. Figurative Passages
• Typology
• Foreshortening

Those sorts of things.

 

[AV1611VET]

These two statements don't make sense to one another. And the thread title is, "If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it."

So how is this science?

Secondarily.

Remember: Creation Science not Science Creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, believe what I believe...

No --- learn what I teach.

If that's your attitude about learning...

No --- that's my attitude about teaching.

...You just accept it as fact, move to the next lesson, and demand that everyone else accept it just as you have.

It's interesting that you're describing teaching in a classroom, using brainwashing terminology. Have you been listening to David Bowie too long?

 

[Lord_Marx]

That's because science has some problems with itself.

Contrary to what you might want to believe, some Scripture can be validated with some Science, and vice-versa; as long as you use the proper tools of Hermeneutics:

• Context
• Language of the Observer
• Law of First Mention
• Subliminal Passages
• Literal vs. Figurative Passages
• Typology
• Foreshortening

Those sorts of things.

Using such methods I think I could validate Lord of the Rings using science.

 

[Chalnoth]

Secondarily.

Remember: Creation Science not Science Creation.

You still haven't explained how it's creation science.

 

[joey444]

Contrary to what you might want to believe, some Scripture can be validated with some Science, and vice-versa; as long as you use the proper tools of Hermeneutics:

The bible has never "validated" science.

 

[Jase]

And if you want others to learn the way you learn, it might be best to hire a hypnotist to assist you in "preparing" the students. Short of that you might try boot-camp techniques of tearing people down, convincing them they're worthless and feeble, and that only through acceptance of your methods and teachings can they be worthy of holding their head up again.

Don't literalists already do this? "You're a worthless piece of trash who deserves to be consciously tortured for all eternity all because some guy ate a bad piece of fruit 6,000 years ago because God let Satan into the garden - now believe what I believe or burn in hell!"

As a theist, I believe humanity is fallen due to sin and needed a savior, but the whole Adam condemned us all, and eternal torture is the best option an omnipotent being could come up with doesn't sit well with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

...and eternal torture is the best option an omnipotent being could come up with doesn't sit well with me.

Ya --- I can tell.

The problem with most people is not Bible interpretation --- it's authority.

 

[LightHorseman]

1. Show how at least two planets in our solar system (besides the Earth) that demonstrate the Anthropic Principle.
2. Which of the four Physical Forces will God use to terminate His creation, and support it with chapter and verse.
3. Give at least two benefits of the Water Canopy, and support them with drawings.
4. Explain what "kinds" are in Genesis 1.
5. How did Nachmonides demonstrate a 10-dimensional universe, using only Genesis 1?
6. Give at least three ways Adam and Eve were superior to today's race.
7. From an astronomical perspective, why did God cause the Sun to go dark from 12:00 - 15:00?
8. EXTRA CREDIT: Draw one constellation in the Zodiac and show what part it pictographically played in conveying the Plan of Salvation.

Heres the point... relying on what it says in Genesis ISN'T SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one would stop ou teaching Genesis in a religion class. But it has no place in a science class. There is a place for creation science in the science classroom when, and only when, you can provide scientific examples of theistic intervntion in the creation process. I have asked you again and again to provide such an example. You continue to ignore my requests.

 

[nvxplorer]

Ya --- I can tell.

The problem with most people is not Bible interpretation --- it's authority.

Wrong. Those of us who reject the Bible's authority do not reject all authority.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. Those of us who reject the Bible's authority do not reject all authority.

I didn't say you "reject all authority" --- I said you have a "problem with authority".

 

[LightHorseman]

I didn't say you "reject all authority" --- I said you have a "problem with authority".

And I said your sylabus for creationism in a biology class room isn't a sience sylabus, its a philosophical one...

 

[AV1611VET]

You continue to ignore my requests.

Requesting clarification isn't "ignoring" --- but I'm through with this anyway, so you'll have to find someone else to answer your question.

I've asked you twice for an example of what you're talking about, with none forthcoming.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I said your sylabus for creationism in a biology class room isn't a sience sylabus, its a philosophical one...

My syllabus for "creation science" was in response to the OP:

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?

You're trying to make it a pure science course (and I have no idea where you got "biology" out of this), and that's not even the question.

 

[shernren]

And the OP itself was, of course, a response to the "teaching of creationism in classes" controversy. Should we teach creationism in class?

Evolutionists contend that creationism isn't science, that it's religion in disguise, that it will rob children of intellectual excellence. And this is exactly what we've seen here. Remember that a science syllabus is a science syllabus precisely because it is stuffed full of falsifiable statements. A physics chapter on radioactivity might tell students that samples decay exponentially (falsifiable), that an alpha particle is a highly energized, ionized helium nucleus (falsifiable), that alpha decay happens primarily with massive nuclei as opposed to beta decay (falsifiable), etc.

Our single candidate "creation science" syllabus is really nothing more than a rewriting of the Bible in science-speak. The Bible is good, but it's as out of place in the science class as a Physics textbook is in Sunday School.

Creationists say that we should "teach the controversy", that there is freedom of speech, that evolution's domination is a big coverup, etc. But I think this thread should silence those objections. Why demand that creation science be taught when you don't even know how to teach it?

(AV, in English, compound phrases consist of the second word being modified by the first. "Creation science" is "science" modified by the modifier "creation", not "creation" modified by the modifier "science". This is a grammatical error I would expect from a Malay speaker, since in the Malay language modifiers come after modified words, but really not from someone who is an avid reader and understander of the AV and the beautiful English therein.