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

[Chalnoth]

The first law of thermodynamics is not E=mc^2.

The first law of thermodynamics is a statement about the conservation of energy. But it is worth noting that this law is not an absolute: the energy of the universe as a whole is not conserved.

The conservation of energy, as it turns out, is a statement about the time-independence of natural laws. But in the context of General Relativity, time and space are interconnected, and one can no longer simply conserve energy: the conservation of energy becomes promoted to the conservation of the stress-energy tensor.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by Jase View Post
The first law of thermodynamics is E=mc2

Yes

is he serious?
he didn't even bother searching the wiki did he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics


all he does is makes Christians a laughing stock.
i hope lurkers understand that his opinions are not those of the management(God).


everyone is entitled to their opinon.
but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinon seriously unless they have done their homework.

Pastor Hugh Braum. Vista Community Church, roughly 1980.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

is he serious?
he didn't even bother searching the wiki did he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics


all he does is makes Christians a laughing stock.
i hope lurkers understand that his opinions are not those of the management(God).


everyone is entitled to their opinon.
but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinon seriously unless they have done their homework.

Pastor Hugh Braum. Vista Community Church, roughly 1980.

Yes, AV and John are some of the best recruiters for the EAC ever, our new agent Supersport is showing promise as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET, could you tell me what the second law of thermodynamics is and what it implicates, in your own words?

Decay --- that's the best way I describe it.

It's something like a net loss of energy due to a difference in temperature within a closed system.

An egg is at minimum entropy --- but when dropped --- goes to maximum entropy.

The universe, according to the Bible, is moving toward maximum entropy, but God is going to intervene.

[bible]Romans 8:20-22[/bible]

At the right time, He is going to release His hold on the atoms (Strong Nuclear Forces), and the universe is going to "dissolve".

[bible]2 Peter 3:10-12[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why what you would be teaching would be religion, not science.

Oh, I'd sneak a little science in there every now and then.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, I'd sneak a little science in there every now and then.

No doubt you'd sneak it so well, nobody would notice it at all.

 

[joey444]

And it would probably be some twisted interpretation of a scientific law to somehow explain god.

 

[Jelumismom]

Well, it's absolute truth that it occurs. I haven't heard of anyone claiming that the Theory of Evolution is perfect though. But considering it is the most well evidenced and supported theory in science, if it weren't a very accurate theory, that doesn't hold much promise for other theories like gravity, plate tectonics, etc.

Science shouldn't be combined with God. Creationists don't seek to understand anything about the world God made because they make blanket statements such as "if science disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis, it is wrong". That isn't science, nor is it intellectually honest.

Why do you make a distinction between evolutionists and christians? Evolutionist does not mean atheist. The majority of the 2+ billion Christians on Earth accept the theory of evolution.

The distinction was made between evolutionists and creation scientists, not Christians...and I'm well aware that many Christians believe in evolution, though I would argue with your use of the word "most".

Luckily, our salvation isn't based on whether or not we are right or wrong...but in our faith that such a creator exists.

 

[joey444]

Getting a bit off topic...

If the creator doesn't exist, your faith doesn't matter much though.

 

[USincognito]

The distinction was made between evolutionists and creation scientists, not Christians...and I'm well aware that many Christians believe in evolution...

Then why didn't you say that in your first post rather than "evolutionists and Christians" in the second paragraph?

Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other?

 

[Jelumismom]

Then why didn't you say that in your first post rather than "evolutionists and Christians" in the second paragraph?

My mistype...thanks for pointing it out.

 

[shernren]

Excellent...EXCELLENT topic!

My biggest complaint about the way schools teach science, specifically evolution, is that they present it as absolute truth, rather than theory. All science, regardless of whether you believe in creation or not, is best guess based on the observations of the world around us. The only difference between evolutionists and creation scientists, is that evolutionists seek to understand the world seperate from God...and creationists seek to understand the world God has made.

I'm a homeschool mom and science is one of our favorite subjects. I think it is important that my children understand both evolution and creation theories. I also think it's important that they determine for themselves what they believe...and the only way they can do that is to receive as much information as possible. Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other? I think it is more detrimental to try to brainwash our children into believing what we believe than it is to teach them everything there is to know about a subject and let them decide for themselves what they believe.

The public school system should be promoting open thinking...after all, it's the very principle our country was founded on. Makes you wonder what everyone's so afraid of, doesn't it??

Yeah, I hate the fact that schools teach oxygen combustion and Newton's Three Laws as absolute fact, not theory, too.

No, I'm not kidding or pulling a Poe's Law. I'm dead serious.

I've always had fantasies of coming into a class one day and telling everyone that every scientist in the world has reinstated phlogiston as the substance which causes fire. Phlogiston, for those of you dephlogisticated fools, is a substance which resides in many objects. When an object starts burning, the fire you see is the vigorous reaction of the object to the phlogiston leaving it and the phlogiston to leaving the object. Objects can only burn for a given time before all the phlogiston leaves them. Some objects have next to no phlogiston, while other objects are very tightly bound to their phlogiston - like metal, which is not very flammable but can still burn.

Students would object and then I'd say "go ahead and prove me wrong." I'd split them into discussion groups where they would desperately come up with some experiment that could prove phlogiston theory wrong. Eventually some bright kids would get the idea of, say, burning magnesium and then showing that the resulting burnt-stuff has more mass than the magnesium burnt, implying that something enters the magnesium, not leaves it. And they'd get a bonus point.

That's what I'd really like to see - an education system in which students have to work towards what they learn. Prove that plants really give off oxygen. Prove Newton's Three Laws. Prove Newton's Law of Gravitation. (It's very difficult but with some given knowledge it should be doable by even 16-year-olds.) Prove Le Chatelier's Principle. Prove de Moivre's Theorem.

Prove the theory of evolution? Kids aren't asked to do that. And they aren't told how to. No wonder they grow up and start believing in creationism.

I would want to teach kids about scientific creationism before teaching them evolution in the same way I'd want them to learn about phlogiston before learning about oxygen.

 

[Beastt]

Yeah, I hate the fact that schools teach oxygen combustion and Newton's Three Laws as absolute fact, not theory, too.

No, I'm not kidding or pulling a Poe's Law. I'm dead serious.

I've always had fantasies of coming into a class one day and telling everyone that every scientist in the world has reinstated phlogiston as the substance which causes fire. Phlogiston, for those of you dephlogisticated fools, is a substance which resides in many objects. When an object starts burning, the fire you see is the vigorous reaction of the object to the phlogiston leaving it and the phlogiston to leaving the object. Objects can only burn for a given time before all the phlogiston leaves them. Some objects have next to no phlogiston, while other objects are very tightly bound to their phlogiston - like metal, which is not very flammable but can still burn.

Students would object and then I'd say "go ahead and prove me wrong." I'd split them into discussion groups where they would desperately come up with some experiment that could prove phlogiston theory wrong. Eventually some bright kids would get the idea of, say, burning magnesium and then showing that the resulting burnt-stuff has more mass than the magnesium burnt, implying that something enters the magnesium, not leaves it. And they'd get a bonus point.

That's what I'd really like to see - an education system in which students have to work towards what they learn. Prove that plants really give off oxygen. Prove Newton's Three Laws. Prove Newton's Law of Gravitation. (It's very difficult but with some given knowledge it should be doable by even 16-year-olds.) Prove Le Chatelier's Principle. Prove de Moivre's Theorem.

Prove the theory of evolution? Kids aren't asked to do that. And they aren't told how to. No wonder they grow up and start believing in creationism.

I would want to teach kids about scientific creationism before teaching them evolution in the same way I'd want them to learn about phlogiston before learning about oxygen.

Perhaps it would be equally beneficial to first teach them about science. Particularly, that science doesn't deal in proofs. "Proofs" are for, (shall we all say it together?) maths and alcohol. Science deals in evidences and establishing conclusions fully within the limits established by the evidence.

There is no "proof" in science.

 

[Beastt]

The universe, according to the Bible, is moving toward maximum entropy, but God is going to intervene.

At the right time, He is going to release His hold on the atoms (Strong Nuclear Forces), and the universe is going to "dissolve".

When and if that happens, you can dance around, point fingers, sing hymns and tell us all that you told us so.

Until then, I ask that you notice that your conclusions are no better evidenced than are the common tales of Mother Goose or any of the religions in which you hold disbelief.

After 2,000 years, "it's going to happen" gets a little thin.

 

[TheBellman]

Oh, I'd sneak a little science in there every now and then.

I doubt that - your creation 'science' has already been shown to be simply religion aspiring to the credibility of science.

 

[Jase]

is he serious?
he didn't even bother searching the wiki did he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#The_laws_of_thermodynamics


all he does is makes Christians a laughing stock.
i hope lurkers understand that his opinions are not those of the management(God).


everyone is entitled to their opinon.
but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinon seriously unless they have done their homework.

Pastor Hugh Braum. Vista Community Church, roughly 1980.

Just for clarification I was questioning AV on the 1st law being E=mc2, I'm not claiming it is ( which it looks like I am based on how you quoted me)

 

[shernren]

Perhaps it would be equally beneficial to first teach them about science. Particularly, that science doesn't deal in proofs. "Proofs" are for, (shall we all say it together?) maths and alcohol. Science deals in evidences and establishing conclusions fully within the limits established by the evidence.

There is no "proof" in science.

You're absolutely right. I just happened to lapse into the colloquial there. Whoops.

But you do get my point, right? Do you think it's a good point?

 

[AV1611VET]

When and if that happens, you can dance around, point fingers, sing hymns and tell us all that you told us so.

Until then, I ask that you notice that your conclusions are no better evidenced than are the common tales of Mother Goose or any of the religions in which you hold disbelief.

After 2,000 years, "it's going to happen" gets a little thin.

[bible]2 Peter 3:3-4[/bible]

Can you believe that some say the Bible isn't up-to-date?

 

[joey444]

*Gasp*


People not believing your idea?! Only a god would be able to predict that!

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps it would be equally beneficial to first teach them about science. Particularly, that science doesn't deal in proofs. "Proofs" are for, (shall we all say it together?) maths and alcohol. Science deals in evidences and establishing conclusions fully within the limits established by the evidence.

There is no "proof" in science.

Translation: science isn't qualified to validate Scripture.