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.
It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...
I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion
It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...
I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion
go look up what an opinion is, and what science is, also look up what a world view is.It is not science, it is a worldview...a popular opinion...
so you don't know what creationism is? it is not a religion, it can be a doctrine of a religion.I do not want Creationism taught in schools either btw. No, religion should be taught in school, unless it is taught as a relgion
So did Thalidomide.Actually gravity and evolution have basically as much scientific consensus as it is possible for a scientific theory to get.
Don't be ridiculous -- of course it's science. Time for my standard rant . . . The National Academy of Sciences thinks evolution is science. So does the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian, the American Museum of Natural History, the National Institutes of Health, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, every major university in the country, Science magazine, Nature and every genetics journal in the world.It is not science,
What do you know that all of these scientists don't?
If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Hype for them is pretty much just the nature of the beast. Like Dr Frankenstein. It may be amazing that he brought the dead back to life. Although all he really did was to create a monster. Look at Science Daily for example. Far to often what you read there is just hype.Evolution is science.
The Grand Canyon is a result of plate tectonics that began 250 million years ago with the breakup of the Super Continent of Pangaea.The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...
The Grand Canyon is a result of plate tectonics that began 250 million years ago with the breakup of the Super Continent of Pangaea.
The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...
Infinite time allows every theory to be plausible because one variable can be any value that makes the formula work. Embedded time, not clock time, should be the focus of real science.
Billions of years is a cop-out and allows bad scientific method to become plausible theory.
Then surely, as you claimed that the water rushed back, you could tell us where to look for that water?Before the Flood there was the Super Continent. When the waters rushed up from the depths, this landmass was broken up so violently that when the water receded, the seven pieces were located where they are now...give or take a few feet.
Then surely, as you claimed that the water rushed back, you could tell us where to look for that water?
One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.
The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.
There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states
So did Thalidomide.
Umm... Where on earth would get the idea that it didn't rain before?One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.
The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.
There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states
Rushing water for 40 days cannot cut through that much solid rock, and if it was the flood that layed down those layers in the first place (the usual explanation) it could not have solidified in time in any case.The Grand Canyon was formed by a large quantity of water rushing back to the depths of the earth, NOT some billions of years of slow erosion...
What is "embedded time?" Give us a definition, Mr "Real Science."Infinite time allows every theory to be plausible because one variable can be any value that makes the formula work. Embedded time, not clock time, should be the focus of real science.
Wrong yet again. Billions of years is a conclusion based on the physical evidence.Billions of years is a cop-out and allows bad scientific method to become plausible theory.
And then fried every living thing on the planet, including Noah and his family. Where in the bible does it say this happened, cause you certainly have no scientific support for this fantasy.Before the Flood there was the Super Continent. When the waters rushed up from the depths, this landmass was broken up so violently that when the water receded, the seven pieces were located where they are now...give or take a few feet.
Yeah.. your guesses and handwaving are superior to over a century of scientific investigation, as well as anything the bible authors wrote.... right?Now, could the Grand Canyon be a result of this violent breakage instead of rushing water leaving the desert? Absolutely...either way, the Flood is behind it....not billions of years.
You're just making this stuff up as you go along... aren't you?One thing to remember, it did not rain before the Flood. Think about it. The people of the earth had never seen rain before it rained 40 days and nights. The environment changed with the Flood. Waters that were held in the sky was released and the water cycle began.
The world changed drastically during this 40 day period...so drastically, certain large reptiles could no longer survive in a drier air than what was before the Flood.
There was no extra water...just a new cycle to keep water moving between states
But your basic every day conundrum will be ~ is this detox diet a waste of money? ~ Should I vaccinate my kids? ~ is this journalist giving credible information on climate change?
No one coming out of high school science can be expected to be able to rationally assess if the last 150 years of biology and 200 years of earth science and 400 years of astronomy and physics is all wrong. No one human even with PhDs in all of these areas could be expected to reconstruct these disciplines from first principles. Some stuff is taught as fact because it's passed a threshold where denial is simply perverse. Evolution, gravity, germ theory, optics, quantum field theory, plate tectonics, stellar fusion, geologic eras, electromagnetism, valence bonding etc have made the grade in this respect. They can be taught as fact with the confidence of massive amounts of consilient evidence despite there being much more, even fundamental stuff, to learn in each and every case. The level at which these things break down into competing hypotheses is well above that which is taught in high school.
At the high school level we should be confident in saying, these are some of the facts and theories you need to just learn and accept in order for any of the other stuff to make sense.
If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Hype for them is pretty much just the nature of the beast. Like Dr Frankenstein. It may be amazing that he brought the dead back to life. Although all he really did was to create a monster. Look at Science Daily for example. Far to often what you read there is just hype.
This is a beautiful post.Why do we want to teach our children science?
Apart from the obvious, materialistic and mundane reasons, what might we hope to impart to our children, even if they never go into science and science-related careers?
We are all surrounded by people wanting us to believe what they are telling us. From the relatively trivial, such as the astrology pages and the claims of fringe medicine, through the clamour of the advertising industry and the appeals of politicians, right up to the ranting of the fanatic and the outright (one could almost say honest) fraud of the con man - at least the con artist is not interested in leaving us with permanent illusions. All these people, for their own motives, want to persuade us to believe what they have to say, sometimes in the belief that they are doing it for our own benefit. But we require the means of evaluating what they have to say for ourselves.
How then, are we to equip our children with the critical faculties required for this sort of evaluation? Good scholarship is a feature of all subjects when they are taught well, but science is the epitome of subjects in which the appeal to authority, "Take my word for it", has no final say. Neither is the final say granted to the armchair philosopher, the clever rhetorician, the appealer to emotion or the snake-oil salesman. Instead, we demand, "Show me!"
Unfortunately, it's not so simple in practice. No school student can test the entire contents of the science curriculum. We have to ensure that the scientific method, with its peer-review process and its principles of repeatability, falsifiability, parsimony and consilience has been applied to what is being taught. We have to be able to know that our scientists and science teachers are faithful to these methods. Only then are our teachers able to impart the heart of science - the attitude of "Show me!" Only then can our children be equipped to reflexively raise an eyebrow to claims such as, "This crystal energy will heal you", "You can trust me with your vote", and "This is the sure way to Paradise."
Yes, but I don't think Barry or BeardedDude advocate not teaching some things as fact. I think their main point - with which I completely agree - is that teaching how scientific facts are established is at least as important as the specific facts.At the high school level we should be confident in saying, these are some of the facts and theories you need to just learn and accept in order for any of the other stuff to make sense.
Your post is a textbook example of a problem I've thought about a lot (and also, recently, wrote about).If this is true then that is a very sad commentary on science. From what I know about science they tend not to be able to deliver on what they say they can deliver on. Hype for them is pretty much just the nature of the beast. Like Dr Frankenstein. It may be amazing that he brought the dead back to life. Although all he really did was to create a monster. Look at Science Daily for example. Far to often what you read there is just hype.
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?