Il start my own wager. 5:1 that one of the parents comes and finds AV, and pees in his cereal.
Upvote
0
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.
/takes bets as to how many parents would forcefully remove their children from this class and then sue the school for stupidity and a violation of their constitutional rights...
Energy is a conserved quantity (note: this isn't a universal law, and only holds in specific cases. It doesn't hold in an expanding universe).Give the formula for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
In a closed system entropy never decreases (Note the closed system I bolded: Earth is an open system, and our entropy is continually being lowered by the uneven heating of the Earth from our sun. This is why we're able to do anything at all).Give the formula for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
There aren't four physical laws. But presumably you meant forces. They are:Name the Four Physical Laws, in order of their magnitude and influence, beginning at the shortest, and ending at the longest.
Our own planet easily is within the anthropic principle, as we can expect our own planet to be habitable for life because we would never have evolved to observe our planet if it wasn't habitable for life.Show how at least two planets in our solar system demonstrate the Anthropic Principle.
This doesn't make any sense at all, because if He existed, He wouldn't use a specific physical force/law, but rather a mechanism (unless He felt like just blinking and getting rid of it).Which of the four physical laws will God use to terminate His creation, and support it with chapter and verse.
There wouldn't be any. It'd cook the Earth from the greenhouse effect preventing any life larger than microbes from surviving.Give at least two benefits of the Water Canopy, and support them with drawings.
Birds, fish, land animals, man. Oh, and the birds were created before the land animals in Genesis 1, making any idea as to Genesis being spread over a great deal of time ridiculous.Explain what "kinds" are in Genesis 1.
Um, he pretended that the Bible explained something it couldn't?How did Nachmonides demonstrate a 10-dimensional universe, using only Genesis 1?
They never existed.Give at least three ways Adam and Eve were superior to today's race.
It's impossible.Why did God cause the Sun to go dark from 12:00 - 15:00, from an astronomical perspective?
Huh? So now you're mixing astrology with Christianity? Aren't those two supposed to be diametrically opposed?EXTRA CREDIT: Draw one constellation in the Zodiac and show what part it pictographically played in conveying the Plan of Salvation.
Science disagrees with scripture when it comes to the Earth's revolution around the Sun, so clearly you must believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Jase said:How about the Earth sitting on pillars or having corners?
Jase said:How about a giant star crashing into the Earth?
Jase said:How about Pi? The Bible says it's 3 - it isn't.
Jase said:How about bats being birds?
I'm calling Poe's Law.Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange.
[bible]Revelation 7:1[/bible]
Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange.
The diameter, using Pi to the 20[sup]th[/sup] decimal place would be:
9.5492965855137201461410607240318
In view of the fact that it's an infinitesimal number, it has to be cut off somewhere, and truncating it to the whole number is what is known as writer's preference.
These are the physical laws of the universe.
Haven't you ever heard of the pillars of the community? the pillars of this? or the pillars of that?
Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange
nope. That's where your wrong. I would advise you to read Dr.Bouw's book, Geocentricity, he shows how there is no possible way to show that Geocentricity is wrong.
The fact that we've been able to send probes to the moon and most of the planets in our solar system says quite succintly that geocentrism is wrong. If geocentrism was correct, none of those probes would have been capable of reaching their destinations, as their paths were predicted by Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity requires the sun to be at the center of the solar system.nope. That's where your wrong. I would advise you to read Dr.Bouw's book, Geocentricity, he shows how there is no possible way to show that Geocentricity is wrong.
[/size][/font]
AV1611VET said:Whoa --- not so fast there, Corvus --- time for the Finals:<snipped for brevity> You may begin.
Seeing as how another already answered these, my doing so would be redundant.
But of course, that wasnt my point at all.
My earlier point, since you missed it completely, is that I fulfilled your required course (that you listed earlier) in about 10 minutes. Your "final exam" is nothing more than moving the goalposts (so very typical) due to the fact that your layout earlier has nothing to do with this "test" you proposed.
Creationism is easy.
The only good that can come of teaching it, as a subject in itself, in a science room are the many many easy "A's" that would be passed out.
The fact that we've been able to send probes to the moon and most of the planets in our solar system says quite succintly that geocentrism is wrong. If geocentrism was correct, none of those probes would have been capable of reaching their destinations, as their paths were predicted by Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity requires the sun to be at the center of the solar system.
Now you're just making stuff up.
BBC - Radio 4 said:Gavin Eslar and Anne Mackenzie explore issues from the four corners of the Earth - from politics to popular culture, art to anthropology.
Actually, as I understand it, Richard T's point is sort of trivially true. In relativity, all frames of reference are equivalent and you can certainly adjust the mathmatics of Newtonian physics such that they will work with a geocentric universe, we just choose to use the simpler transformation.The fact that we've been able to send probes to the moon and most of the planets in our solar system says quite succintly that geocentrism is wrong. If geocentrism was correct, none of those probes would have been capable of reaching their destinations, as their paths were predicted by Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity requires the sun to be at the center of the solar system.
So in other words, you take literal what you have no clue about ( Genesis) and you take metaphoric what is easily personally verifiable ( the Earth having corners). How convenient.Did I make this up?
I'll quote something that I found interesting from Bouw's book:Did I make this up?
Jesus violated gravity because he floated into the air? Wow, I guess helium balloons, air planes, the space shuttle, etc. are in very a rude awakening then. Or does God perform a miracle on them every time they "defy" gravity?I'll quote something that I found interesting from Bouw's book:
Thus the ordinances of heaven cannot be restricted or equated to what is popularly called the "laws of physics." Actually the socalled "laws of physics" are not "laws" at all; for if they were then God would break the "law" every time that he performed a miracle. Take the "second law of thermodynamics," for example. One of the implications of the "second law" is that the dead cannot be resurrected; nevertheless, Jesus resurrected Lazarus and others and thus violated the "second law." When Jesus ascended into heaven he violated both the law of gravity and Newton's second law which states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. When God spoke the universe into existence he violated the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy (or matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus the "laws" of physics are "laws" only in the traditions of men. They are not God's inviolable laws or ordinances.(p.132)
-Gerardus D. Bouw
Association for Biblical Astronomy
4527 Wetzel Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
U.S.A
Jesus violated gravity because he floated into the air? Wow, I guess helium balloons, air planes, the space shuttle, etc. are in very a rude awakening then. Or does God perform a miracle on them every time they "defy" gravity?
Excellent...EXCELLENT topic!This was an interesting question I raised quite a while ago in the Christians-only origins forum, but I'd like to bring it up here again where a number of different creationists seem to be more regular.
If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?
I'd want to see a list of topics and intended learning outcomes. For example, under the field (hehe) of electromagnetism, a common topic is "Coulomb's Law" and the intended outcome is "Students should be able to describe Coulomb's Law and use it to quantitatively compute the force between two charges." So yes. If we wanted to teach kids in school about creationism, how would go about it? And what would you want them to learn at the end?
I think this could be an instructive exercise, if rigorously followed, in why we don't call creationism science, and why suggesting that it be included in school education is not a good idea.
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?