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.
I don't understand your fluid or "ethereal substance?"
I think I can conclude we've narrowed it down to at least these two: science and education. I was hoping we could narrow it to just one. For example, are you more concerned with how actual scientists are practicing their discipline or are you more concerned with how curricula are selected for schools?
But maybe those two are inseparable in your mind. You're concerned about science education. Would that be fair?
Why should it be one?
What gases were present in the early atmosphere to you?
I have no idea. Why does it matter, and what does this have to do with science education?
You can call your comments whatever you like, but as far as I'm concerned, they have nothing to do with science and do not in the least help your case.
Then you are ignorant of science, education, and the created world. There you go.
. What problems with it?Why not just show the kids the theory of evolution including all the problems with it?
Teaching them a young earth creationists biblical interpretation should stay in the church.
Blasphemy? Seriously? That term is usually used in this context:
Definition of blasphemy
1a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God accused of blasphemy
b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy— John Bright †1889
I hardly think that creation as YEC believe could be considered "blaspheming" as it is actually in total agreement with:
1/What God is capable of.
2/ What God told us that He did.
If some guy, a created being of the creator, looks around this earth and concludes some other view.. I think I will take the words of the one who created, over the words of one who was created.
There are a lot of things, in science, that were once held as dear as your view... and later, were found to be impossible due to some new knowledge gained...
This is the exact case with Darwinian view... He had no idea of the complexity of every living cell, DNA or the vast amount of information and it's complexity..
From there, it's a down hill slide that morphs into a free fall.
I was at Joggin's Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia.
There are layers of strata that are supposed to represent millions of years. Yet, there are trees right up through these layers..
These tress stand as exclamation points, of God, to prove that these layers were all formed while a tree was standing there..
Hardly millions of years.
View attachment 262024
. Polystrate trees ? Really ! Why don’t you read a science book for middle schoolers and find out how they formed over maybe a few decades . You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t even understand middle school science but you’re questioning a major scientific theory like evolution
I got an idea for a simple experiment from Pedals. This bear became fully bipedal because he injured his front paw. Can we tie one of an apes/chimps hands so it is disabled temporarily? Will it be forced to walk bipedal or will it have difficulties? Obviously, we cannot document it being passed on, but it would show whether it can be fully biped or not.
Here's an example of an ape
It's your "faith-based" science Brightmoon, so you can figure out and tie the great ape.
Yeah, but that is basically what education is all about; it's divulging into the roots of the topics and understanding them enough to form one's own educated opinion on the matter.It's not just ToE, but evolutionary thinking and history. It goes back to ancient times. I used to believe in evolution until around 2011. Some things didn't add up like mutations, tree of life, common ancestor, Lucy, and so on. I became Christian in 2012 and ended up comparing evolution vs. creation. Before I could I had to get past the parts that confused me and all new converts like the people parts (God orders his people to kill all the Caananites including women, children, and babies), scientific parts like people living to long ages, and all the begots.
YEC can be taught without the religious parts. Basically, YEC is comprised of the first two books (chapters) of Genesis. If two perfect humans procreated from the time period of Noah's Flood, i.e. Noah's family, then it would match today's population.
Mmm. Really? You want to compare resume's?
Yeah, but that is basically what education is all about; it's divulging into the roots of the topics and understanding them enough to form one's own educated opinion on the matter.
I think to push a YEC narrative falls into choppy waters of less about education; It's like you have exchanged one indoctrination for another.
It sound like you're feeling overwhelmed because I asked you a question and you didn't know.
Comparing resumes, how much better looking I am that you (even my kids are better looking than you), how much more money I have than your entire family, comparing what accomplishments we have made in life does not mean squat.
There is no such thing as creation science, there is only science. It's this young-earth creation/evolutionary narrative placed upon the scientific method one should be wary of placing upon children.Well, I am on the minority side. When any breakthroughs happen like experiments to debunk Miller-Urey, it is suppressed by secular and atheist scientists in power. We already know Darwin was wrong about many things with his theories, but changes over long time, tree of life, and common ancestor is still being promoted. The transitions do not happen. What happens is natural selection which is variations within a species. Even the argument of birds to dinosaurs uses the argument that birds are land animals. This contradicts what the Bible states. They will use birds that do not fly, but these birds developed from their environment and didn't have to fly. They ended up using their wings for balance and mating. It's unfair that creation science cannot present their theories as they are excluded from mainstream science. Mainstream science is geared to protect long time, common ancestor, and tree of life. Even the bushes of life theory and orchard theory is not accepted as the main theory when it has been demonstrated that it is. Creation science has baraminology, but there is only one college in the US that supports their research. Any breakthroughs will not be reported. Creation scientists have a hard time getting into Encyclopedia Britannica. This is why you believe what you do. The majority of people have been fooled and it is difficult to show they have been fooled.
The above vid is some measure of victory for creation scientists. It doesn't relate to what we have been discussing, but it shows that we have won in the court system. The other part is with Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. It still is going after a rough 2016 beginning helped out by the debate.
Maybe not teach creation science as a subject but at least incorporate a philosophy subject that allows the questioning of the science method and paradigm. As noted in the Lee Strobel video science has shown that the universe has a beginning and through the Kalām cosmological argument logic would tell us that a universe that has a beginning must have a cause. If it has a cause then something outside of the universe was responsible. We don't have to say it is a Christian God but we can at least allow for consideration that there may be influences at play beyond the scientific method.Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
There is no such thing as creation science, there is only science. It's this young-earth creation/evolutionary narrative placed upon the scientific method one should be wary of placing upon children.
What is it you believe I believe to be so?
Maybe not teach creation science as a subject but at least incorporate a philosophy subject that allows the questioning of the science method and paradigm. As noted in the Lee Strobel video science has shown that the universe has a beginning and through the Kalām cosmological argument logic would tell us that a universe that has a beginning must have a cause. If it has a cause then something outside of the universe was responsible. We don't have to say it is a Christian God but we can at least allow for consideration that there may be influences at play beyond the scientific method.
The problem I see is that only having a science subject without a religious or philosophical subject to balance things can allow science to be just as much as a brain washing influence as people say religion is. Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative, epistemological values and reality. So people can become fixed in a certain way of thinking that excludes all else in the overall scheme of things and this can do just as much damage. We have seen this throughout history with scientific experimentation om people because of certain ideologies about what science can do.
I do not think many and perhaps the majority of people bother with or are even capable of understanding the science of creationism or evolution and therefore this is not imperative to their salvation. Salvation is not determined on what version of creation or whether a person may support some aspects of evolution. Evolution does not automatically equate to being excluded from God. It is all about a faith in him through Jesus and all else is on the fringes and in fact getting too caught up in the politics of creation and evolution can cause more confusion and harm if a person does not have the ability and understanding to discern things properly.
. Another thing you’ve misunderstood. Feduccia think that birds are archosaurs . Dinosaurs are also archosaurs FYI. He just thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs. He thinks that because he thinks some fossils indicate that ( ya know that nasty word evidence ) . At this point it’s a very speculative hypothesis but there might be more than one lineage of birds, one extant and one extinct.We can teach the following can't we -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com? As for the anti-evolution, it has come up since the 1850s from James Hutton's and Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism, i.e. the present is the key to the past, and Charles Darwin's ToE. Darwin was a pupil of Lyell. Hutton and Lyell were atheists. Darwin became one after he explained how evolution works. He did not invent the ToE as many people believe. Thus, I would state this is part of science, the first two books (chapters) of Genesis. It is the only supernatural part. You have to also have a priori thinking with the supernatural. This is using rational thinking, facts, reasoning, and historical truths. Finally, creation scientists today are formulating a curriculum to counter evolution with Baraminology. ( snip)
For example, Alan Feduccia who is against birds from dinosaurs wrote a book against it. He states he does not know the origin of birds and he's an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist. That's another book that can be used.
. Another thing you’ve misunderstood. Feduccia think that birds are archosaurs . Dinosaurs are also archosaurs FYI. He just thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs. He thinks that because he thinks some fossils indicate that ( ya know that nasty word evidence ) . At this point it’s a very speculative hypothesis but there might be more than one lineage of birds, one extant and one extinct.
Baraminology is a pseudoscience pretty much like astrology or phrenology and has no relevance to real scientific inquiry. Just because YOU believe it doesn’t make it scientifically accurate. Evolution/ common descent has been responsible for most modern medical and agricultural breakthroughs over the last 150years . A pseudoscience like baraminology would destroy all of that
. It would help a lot if you understood the fossils or the terminology you constantly ,unendingly and ignorantly complain about. Transitional doesn’t have to mean direct ancestors. It could mean distant cousin . Archaeopteryx is a transitional . It might or might not be a direct ancestor of modern birds. Arboreal just means that they lived in trees.Last point first, baraminology isn't pseudoscience. One has to prove their claims instead of just making assertions. What it is is real science that has been systematically eliminated from secular science. Their hypothesis and theories are peer-reviewed by other creation scientists and published in their journals.
Second, I'll assume you cannot rebut what was found by OSU research as what I have been saying about the impossibility of birds from dinosaurs. When are you going to claim birds are land animals and not flying animals of the air like God stated in Genesis?
In regards to Feduccia, there are a considerable number of scientists who do not buy in to birds from dinosaurs. They back Feduccia and that birds are not dinosaurs. Feduccia wrote about the feather remains as skin follicles. Most of the fossils used to support theropods to birds are 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. Oops. Besides, they were runners and did not fly. Feduccia thinks birds descended from arboreal animals. Does the archosaur fit that description? The fossil record also show that feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than to help catch insects.
http://stri-sites.si.edu/sites/publications/PDFs/Leigh_Feduccia.pdf
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?