Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Cabal]

I disagree.

The students wouldn't know if he's unqualified to teach arithmetic.

Can you picture someone starting to teach arithmetic to such a class?

Teacher: Please note that one plus equal...
Student: What about the alphabet? What's one plus a?
Teacher: Arithmetic is numbers without the alphabet.
Student: Then that's deceptive. Can't 'a' be added to something?
Teacher: Yes, but that's called "algebra".
Student: Then you're making up this 'arithmetic'. What does that term mean, anyway?
Teacher: It means 'the art of counting.'
Student: So it should be taught in art class?
Teacher: Look, let's get back to one plus one.
Student: What about drawing us a 'one' on the chalkboard, since you just admitted arithmetic is artwork? I want to see what a 'one' looks like.
Another student: Hey, man, cut it out. Let's hear the teacher explain himself. You can add one to one, but not one to 'a'? I'm confused.
Teacher: Again --- arithmetic is not about the alphabet.
Student: So you can't draw letters on the chalkboard? How do you depict them then?
Teacher: /class
Students: Mission accomplished! Works every time!
​

This is not 2+2, AV. This is your own little pet theory. This isn't a lecture class. This is you defending your idea against inquiry. If you can't do that without sulking, then /thread off.

Now, can we maybe please stop this entertaining aside, and can you please, finally, answer my question (and those of others also).

If navels are excluded on the basis of being functionless scars because of your embedded age idea, then would one have to exclude many other things as well, such as bud scars on trees? The reason I'm asking, is because navels only seems like a somewhat arbitrary insistence.

 

[AV1611VET]

If all those things are happening to him, it would be his fault as a teacher. Obviously, any teacher is going to have to deal with some troublemakers. But if every student, on every topic, is laughing/ignoring/misquoting/etc., then it's the teacher who needs to look at changing his tactics.

Your tactics obviously aren't working. If you don't attempt to change them, then you are failing in your teaching.

I disagree --- you can't always blame the teacher.

And that works both ways too.

If teacher after teacher can't explain even basic theology here (which I've noticed), I don't fault the teacher.

Look around --- you've got a lot of "teachers" here trying to explain their POV, and nothing is sinking in anywhere.

By your logic, Noah was the one in the wrong.

 

[Cabal]

I disagree --- you can't always blame the teacher.

And that works both ways too.

If teacher after teacher can't explain even basic theology here (which I've noticed), I don't fault the teacher.

Look around --- you've got a lot of "teachers" here trying to explain their POV, and nothing is sinking in anywhere.

Notice to class: Notice how "hmmm, maybe I should reevaluate my point of view" isn't an option here, nor is it ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

If navels are excluded on the basis of being functionless scars because of your embedded age idea, then would one have to exclude many other things as well, such as bud scars on trees? The reason I'm asking, is because navels only seems like a somewhat arbitrary insistence.

I'm not excluding navels --- I'm saying they had a time and a place to show up --- and the Garden of Eden was neither the time, nor the place.

They did not belong on Adam and Eve.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not excluding navels --- I'm saying they had a time and a place to show up --- and the Garden of Eden was neither the time, nor the place.

They did not belong on Adam and Eve.

Excluding navels in the Garden of Eden then.

Would other things have to be excluded during that time, like growth scars on trees?

 

[AV1611VET]

Excluding navels in the Garden of Eden then.

Would other things have to be excluded during that time, like growth scars on trees?

I'm assuming so, since the trees in Eden didn't grow, and the trees in the Garden of Eden were supernaturally grown by God's direct intervention.

When Adam was put to sleep, and God removed one of his ribs, God enclosed the flesh Himself.

No scar --- again, in my opinion.

Was God being deceptive in not leaving a scar behind on purpose?

 

[Cabal]

I'm assuming so, since the trees in Eden didn't grow, and the trees in the Garden of Eden were supernaturally grown by God's direct intervention.

When Adam was put to sleep, and God removed one of his ribs, God enclosed the flesh Himself.

No scar --- again, in my opinion.

Was God being deceptive in not leaving a scar behind on purpose?

Well, it wouldn't matter from the point of view of embedded age. It would be ok to have history after being created, surely?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it wouldn't matter from the point of view of embedded age. It would be ok to have history after being created, surely?

Well, if God could do major surgery like that and not leave a scar, then I imagine He left no scars behind prior to the surgery, either.

 

[Cabal]

Well, if God could do major surgery like that and not leave a scar, then I imagine He left no scars behind prior to the surgery, either.

Um...don't think I ever queried God's ability to not create scars.

I did however, question the motivation of not leaving scars.

So I still don't believe the rib extraction relates to the discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did however, question the motivation of not leaving scars.

Are there any scars on the Mona Lisa?

God's "Mona Lisa" was much better than that.

 

[Cabal]

Are there any scars on the Mona Lisa?

God's "Mona Lisa" was much better than that.

Again, not disputing this premise. The problem is how does embedded age square with what we actually see.

 

[sandwiches]

No, you haven't --- don't think you're some kind of superteacher.

If your students ignored you, insulted you, left you threatening notes in your in-box, refused to take your quizzes, and changed everything you said around; then whined because they didn't understand anything, I'd venture to say you'd be no different than I.

LOL
The self-martyrization of AV. It's like a puppet show. Say the words and AV dances.

I don't care if he's teaching arithmetic.

If he's being laughed at, ignored, misquoted, thought of as a troll, supertroll, liar, deceiver, or just plain wrong; the students are not going to learn anything.

If thaumaturgy made statements without explaining them as if they were self-evident, if he answered questions them with half sentences or stopped answering them altogether, if when cornered about an issue, he simply covered his ears and repeated "That's the way it is. Period," if he would mock their understanding and refuse to explain, he would definitely deserve all that and more.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, not disputing this premise. The problem is how does embedded age square with what we actually see.

It doesn't --- you're not "seeing" the whole picture, and what you do "see", is fuzzy at best:

For now we see through a glass, darkly;

Science is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

If thaumaturgy made statements without explaining them as if they were self-evident, if he answered questions them with half sentences or stopped answering them altogether, if when cornered about an issue, he simply covered his ears and repeated "That's the way it is. Period," if he would mock their understanding and refuse to explain, he would definitely deserve all that and more.

And if the students do it?

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, you haven't --- don't think you're some kind of superteacher.

I have taught geology and chemistry at several state universities as well as a community college, AV.

Let's see....

mineralogy lab
environmental geology
general science curriculum class
Geology 1 + Lab (about 4 years worth, that's about 8 semesters, anywhere from 1 to 3 sections each semester)
Chemistry (intro) for about 3 years.
Evening classes of geology 101 for a couple years

Now I work part-time as a chemistry tutor for high school and AP chemistry classes.

Yup...I think I got the teaching stuff down. While I may not be a "superteacher", I have taught. And taught quite a bit.

If your students ignored you, insulted you, left you threatening notes in your in-box, refused to take your quizzes, and changed everything you said around; then whined because they didn't understand anything, I'd venture to say you'd be no different than I.

Well, it is quite a bad thing if they are threatening you. I am unaware of that. I am only referring to stuff I see in the discussions on this board.

But, again, any teacher will tell you, if most of the class is consistently missing your point maybe, just maybe, the rest of the world isn't stupid...

Maybe you need to go back to your lesson plans and see if maybe the critiques you are getting of your "hypothesis" might not bear some re-reading.

I'll tell you, when I started teaching I was horrible at it. I didn't know how to communicate to the students. I didn't learn how to teach until I started hearing what the students said.

It doesn't mean the students are always right. But ignoring what the students say and bulling ahead with your repeated statements isn't getting the point across. Teaching doesn't just consist of making ex cathedra statements. Sometimes you have to understand how the audience hears your point. (It might also help if you treat the audience as if they are capable of reading and understanding as well.)

Maybe instead of telling everything to "take a hike" when it disagrees with you, you might wish to listen to what others say. At the very least it may help you learn how present your "hypothesis" (or word game or whatever it is) better the next time 'round.

Just a bit of advice. Should you have any interest in getting your point across.

 

[Cabal]

It doesn't --- you're not "seeing" the whole picture, and what you do "see", is fuzzy at best:Science is myopic.

Ok. And now we've jumped back to science again I see. Not being scarred has nothing to do with embedding age to match the scientific results, which is what this whole thing was about in the first place.

And if science is so myopic, why spend so much time formulating this theory just so you can accept the dates science has concluded?

 

[Skaloop]

I disagree --- you can't always blame the teacher.

And that works both ways too.

If teacher after teacher can't explain even basic theology here (which I've noticed), I don't fault the teacher.

Look around --- you've got a lot of "teachers" here trying to explain their POV, and nothing is sinking in anywhere.

You're the only one I've ever seen trying to teach "embedded age". Don't try to pass your ineffective teaching abilities onto others when nobody else is trying to teach your nonsense.

By your logic, Noah was the one in the wrong.

No, by my logic Noah never existed.

 

[Skaloop]

Science is myopic.

Theology is blind.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I disagree.

The students wouldn't know if he's unqualified to teach arithmetic.

Can you picture someone starting to teach arithmetic to such a class?

Teacher: Please note that one plus equal...
Student: What about the alphabet? What's one plus a?
Teacher: Arithmetic is numbers without the alphabet.
Student: Then that's deceptive. Can't 'a' be added to something?
Teacher: Yes, but that's called "algebra".
Student: Then you're making up this 'arithmetic'. What does that term mean, anyway?
Teacher: It means 'the art of counting.'
Student: So it should be taught in art class?
Teacher: Look, let's get back to one plus one.
Student: What about drawing us a 'one' on the chalkboard, since you just admitted arithmetic is artwork? I want to see what a 'one' looks like.
Another student: Hey, man, cut it out. Let's hear the teacher explain himself. You can add one to one, but not one to 'a'? I'm confused.
Teacher: Again --- arithmetic is numbers without the alphabet.
Student: So you can't draw letters on the chalkboard? How do you depict them then?
Teacher: /class
Students: Mission accomplished! Works every time!
​

Some folks seem to labor over these imaginary scenarios. It's like a Chick Tract.

I can definitely tell you've probably never had much time teaching. If you think that students normally don't do that sort of stuff from time to time!

The key as an educator is to establish your point and field the outliers as they come flying in. Sometimes you have to set aside silly sidetracks...this is true! You would not be alone. But when the majority of the class and each new class you "teach" winds up drawing the same conclusions (that make you feel you haven't gotten your point across)...well, maybe it's your teaching style that is getting in the way.

So rather than dreaming up another "dramatic reenactment of the horrible things you imagine people are doing to you", maybe you could draw up a better lesson plan. Take some time.

Most importantly: Look at the consistent critiques that have come up about "Embedded Age" (many many times now) and address those points up front in a way that isn't just "Nuh huh!"

Teaching isn't easy. In fact, research science is actually an easier gig than teaching. Teaching means you not only have to know your stuff but you have to be able to communicate it effectively. It's something everyone who teaches runs into.

And it is part of why many don't teach. Just knowing it yourself doesn't cut it in teaching.

 

[Split Rock]

No, you haven't --- don't think you're some kind of superteacher.

If your students ignored you, insulted you, left you threatening notes in your in-box, refused to take your quizzes, and changed everything you said around; then whined because they didn't understand anything, I'd venture to say you'd be no different than I.

Do you really see yourself being treated that way here?? Who has threatened you? Who is changing everything you say around (that is an AVET trick, like Pluto and teh Space Shuttle)? Who is the one whinning now?

I don't care if he's teaching arithmetic.

If he's being laughed at, ignored, misquoted, thought of as a troll, supertroll, liar, deceiver, or just plain wrong; the students are not going to learn anything.

Are you done portraying yourself as a martyr? If you cannot handle our questions that is your fault, not ours. Welcome to the real world.

I disagree.

The students wouldn't know if he's unqualified to teach arithmetic.

Can you picture someone starting to teach arithmetic to such a class?

Teacher: Please note that one plus equal...
Student: What about the alphabet? What's one plus a?
Teacher: Arithmetic is numbers without the alphabet.
Student: Then that's deceptive. Can't 'a' be added to something?
Teacher: Yes, but that's called "algebra".
Student: Then you're making up this 'arithmetic'. What does that term mean, anyway?
Teacher: It means 'the art of counting.'
Student: So it should be taught in art class?
Teacher: Look, let's get back to one plus one.
Student: What about drawing us a 'one' on the chalkboard, since you just admitted arithmetic is artwork? I want to see what a 'one' looks like.
Another student: Hey, man, cut it out. Let's hear the teacher explain himself. You can add one to one, but not one to 'a'? I'm confused.
Teacher: Again --- arithmetic is numbers without the alphabet.
Student: So you can't draw letters on the chalkboard? How do you depict them then?
Teacher: /class
Students: Mission accomplished! Works every time!
​

Weeeee! What a fun fantasy you have created for yourself! You are trying to teach us arithmetic and we keep asking about the alphabet... wrong again. We are asking you about your pet model. We are asking you direct questions about it and about its consequences upon what we see in the real world today. Sorry if you cannot handle that without dramatizing your awful predictament here in this forum... If you cannot defend your model, then why did you start this thread in the first place??