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

[AngryWomble]

q.v. Post 6 on Page 1 --- Post 75 on Page 8 --- Post 233 on Page 24.

This not only gives the lesson plan, but the finals, as well.

Post 6:

Appears to be only course aims and a crude outline....i'd be hard pressed to accept that as a syllabus.

Post 75:

Possibly acceptable as a list of terminal assessments, however not all of the questions appear to relate back to your 'course outline'.

Post 233:

Hmmm.......a list of things that could be covered, might be a syllabus but doesn't seem to be set out with an order of progression, looks like it might be more suited to your course ouline.

So sorry, seems like you need to put some more effort in, the age old classic of 'must try harder' springs to mind. for effort i'll give you a C but for content it's got to be an F i'm afriad.

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh, and AV, you still haven't explained why your course should be considered science.

 

[nvxplorer]

No --- you should keep your "scientific breakthroughs" to yourself until it's proven --- not let someone die of Vioxx, then say, "Oops, more research necessary; after all, change is our strongest attribute".

Don't call Pluto a planet until you know whether it is or not.

And, above all, don't say Jesus didn't walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead until you know for sure He didn't.

Funny how you want science to keep its findings to itself until "proven," but you won't provide the same level of certainty for Biblical claims. Indeed, you request that we prove a negative or shut up.

 

[Tomk80]

[/font]

Don't blame that on politics, Tom. It's the love of money, the desire to get your name in the limelight, the quest to be first on the block to make a discovery that predicates the Publish or Perish Principle.

Euh, no. It would actually help if you talked to scientists about them before sprouting your misconceptions. If you would have, you would have seen that this is not the goal of scientists.

The problem is that scientists need to obtain grants to do research. Other then you seem to think, money for research has to be obtained, it isn't created magically. But funding is often only provided for research that is will give quick results and the success is measured in the number of articles published. That this is a very bad yardstick for good research is something that is continuously noted by scientists, they just can't do much about it. They will need money for research, and as politicians and companies think successful research is research that publishes much, they are forced in that direction.

And if you would talk to scientists and look at the position they hold, the work they have to do for it and the money they get for it, you would see that being a scientist is not the best paying job there is. People who are interested in making money or becoming famous generally do not become scientists. They're better adviced to go into business or politics, and often do so.

And incidentally, where are the scientists when the REVERSE is going on?

Doing research and being actually amazed that people buy that crap. And if they try to counter the below they are continuously facing people like you who will reject what they say without thought because of their stereotyping of scientists, like you do. And doing this work doesn't pay, their are no funds for it. So they will need to do it next to their actual work, which is already stressful enough because those very same people vote for politicians who determine to only give grants if enough articles are published, in other words the very same people who are in part responsible for the publish or perish phenomenon. It's quite the catch-22, which is why scientists will generally choose to just get on with their work instead of trying to pursuade people who aren't actually interested in what they way.

New Agers are selling Shark Cartilage, Amaranth Crackers, and Magnetic Bracelets --- all the while using science to support the validity of their products.

Have you ever browsed a copy of New Age magazine and seen the garbage that's offered us?

Yes, I haven't seen any science to support it though, only claims of that by the new-agers. Everyone can make claims, but are they true? In the cases above, I have yet to see such a claim using science. Your claim is not true.

In the past 40 years, science has given accreditation to such things as Transcendental Meditation, Chiropractic, Iridology, and Touch Therapy --- not to mention Acupuncture and Acupressure, and it sickens me.

Science didn't, politics did. Very few of the above are actually endorsed by scientists, and if so, only in a very limited set of circumstances. But people can claim a lot, and it seems you walk right into those claims.

I can't remember when it was --- in the mid-80's I think --- Bill Bixby hosted a show called The NBC Million Dollar Challenge. (I think.)

In that special, NBC brought the world's greatest experts in 10 metaphysical fields to the studio, and challenged them to prove their craft was legitimate (and they would receive $1,000,000.00).

I remember the first person up was a lady that could read auras.

They put 12 (maybe it was 10) vertical panels up, "cleansed" the area with red light, then told her to tell us if anyone is standing behind any of the panels. She hesitated, then said there was someone behind every panel.

There were people behind, like, panels 1, 3, 4, and 11 - or something to that effect.

The last person was the world's greatest dowser. They put water in twelve 55-gallon drums, and had him stand over them with his divining rod and read the drums. Again failure.

Between these "stunts", they were showing clips from Penn and Teller doing junk, and Uri Geller bending spoons, etc.

The point I'm making here is simply this:

Why did it take an ACTOR, and not a SCIENTIST to prove these people wrong?

The scientists never cared about those claims, because they knew they were false in the first place. Why waste time on that when you've got better things to do?

Where's the scientific outcry against Tony Robbins, and that guy that can get people in touch with their loved ones who have "passed on to the other side", and Deepak Chopra, and Shirley MacClain, etc?

I'll tell you where they're at --- they're at the bank.

They're doing research. Meanwhile, skeptics are trying to use that exact research to counter a lot of those claims, people like James Randi. Scientists are researchers, that's their job. They're not all good public speakers. I would agree with you that science needs a better PR-department with scientists that are given the time and money to address the things you cry out against. Alas, it is not there, so we'll need to make due with just the research.

But what you mentioned above has nothing to do with scientific claims and with my question at all. It's all politics.

 

[Edx]

Yes, it does, and I'm very thankful for James Randi; but when I see stuff like that debunked, I just think: "yup --- we knew that all along".

James Randi isnt a friend to the Creationist. Point is, Creationists make supernatural claims. They also have a problem with the scientific method, becuase they feel that science should be able to make supernatural assumptions about the universe. So we ask them, at what time has a supernatural assumption ever been verifiably shown to be correct? At no time can they answer that question because at no time has that ever happened. Yet they still want the supernatural included in science. James Randi debunks claims of the supernatural. If you "knew that all along", how are you a Creationist?

 

[LightHorseman]

I'm still waiting for any non biblical evidence of theistic intervention. I'd accept any at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still waiting for any non biblical evidence of theistic intervention. I'd accept any at all.

You want what?

Give me an example of "non-biblical evidence of theistic intervention".

Guidepost Magazine is full of examples.

 

[AngryWomble]

No reply for my previous post then AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

No reply for my previous post then AV?

Well, I tried, anyway.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Guidepost Magazine is full of examples.

Ahh .. so its peer reviewed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahh .. so its peer reviewed?

Beats me --- I never liked it, myself.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Beats me --- I never liked it, myself.

How can you say that it is "non-biblical evidence of theistic intervention" if it is not peer reviewed?

 

[LightHorseman]

Give me an example of "non-biblical evidence of theistic intervention".

Guidepost Magazine is full of examples.

Not having a copy of Guidepost magazine infront of me, would you perhaps like to chose an example to share with us?

And, as I have said elsewhere, I want a REAL example of theistic intervention, not one of those silly "what use is half a wing" "examples"... but an actual example, where A leads to B, then a miracle occurs to convert B into C.

 

[AngryWomble]

Well, I tried, anyway.

i'm talking about post 321 sweetie

 

[AV1611VET]

i'm talking about post 321 sweetie

So was I --- care to take a stab at my final? No one else will.

It's much easier to critique than answer.

 

[LightHorseman]

have a stab at your final? sure, I'll have a go.

 

[AngryWomble]

So was I --- care to take a stab at my final? No one else will.

It's much easier to critique than answer.

Excuse me but i thought someone already had? As well as the current individual. However this is just you wriggling out of the fact that what you've produced does not contain anything remotely like a lesson plan. And although i may only be a mear trainee teacher i know what they look like.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not having a copy of Guidepost magazine infront of me, would you perhaps like to chose an example to share with us?

It's full of examples like:

• I was walking down an alley.
• Some gang started following me.
• A huge man showed up and they ran off.
• I turned around to thank the man, and he was gone.

It's based on a lot of testimonies supporting Hebrews 13:2.

[bible]Hebrews 13:2[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Excuse me but i thought someone already had? As well as the current individual. However this is just you wriggling out of the fact that what you've produced does not contain anything remotely like a lesson plan. And although i may only be a mear trainee teacher i know what they look like.

Perhaps then, you would like to answer the OP?

Critiques are a dime-a-dozen, aren't they?

 

[LightHorseman]

Oh... so they aren't REAL examples... like examples that could be replicated by experiment, or even proved to be true with photos are similar huh?