Enjoy the free Classified Ads! 24HourForums.com Home Thank you for supporting us. Click to enter Posts Of The Day.
Recent Posts Search by username
Search Contact Us Login Register
When logged in, click this to open up the Jumper for easier navigation. Click for details on our forum system in the Forum Center.
Click to be shown the (Top 10 and Management) forums listed in the top section of the site. Click to be shown the (Supported) forums listed in the middle section of the site. Click to be shown the (UnSupported) forums listed in the bottom section of the site. Click to learn about, or pay for, forum Sponsorships. Click for the Official Forum Voting Poll.  VOTE! Click for info on owning a forum here at 24.


Share this topic...
Digg!  - Digg   Slashdot  - SlashDot    - del.icio.us    - Reddit    - StumbleUpon   - Facebook

 Moderated by: Brian Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
foxglovepress
Forum-Blogger©
Original500© Member

NON-PC!!
Joined: 
Location: USA
Posts: 7855
MyResume: 
MyJob: Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum: Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove: Family and ?
MyWish: A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile: [Download]
MyIntro: [Download]
MySex: On Hold for now.....
Status:  Offline
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 10:14 pm

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
Brian wrote: foxglovepress wrote: 24HourNut wrote: Brian, yes I agree, I took her differently for some reason. My bad!

Well it's confusing because I've actually talked of two ideas here.  IF Creation had some proof, then shouldn't it be brought into the science class?  The other idea is,

(Part OF the science class should be trying TO prove  Creation.  If in fact it can not be done, don't you think that alone is reason to probe into the two subjects?)

I think a science class designed TO prove Creation would be a good idea!  I think this is the idea you're not agreeing with Frank.

Hi, Fox.

I think I understand the second part now.  Here's my problem with that:  Science classes (as opposed to professional research) aren't meant to be testing grounds for new ideas.  Science class deals with much more certain areas, where there's little if any scientific controversy.  You might have a science class do experiments to demonstrate gravity by dropping various sized objects (since you're demonstrating a principle there), but you wouldn't have a science class trying to prove the existence of alternate universes.  Research scientists do that kinf of work, and students in science classes study the results once they've been confirmed.


science classes study the results once they've been confirmed.

Now THAT makes sense to me.  So what I'm meaning then is actually, that there should be Research science classes where they look for proof ?  I'm not so sure that science has proved at all that man came from primates though, so that shouldn't really be confirmed or discussed in a science class either, right?

 




Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS!

Ads appear if not logged in.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation


Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 4182
MyResume: 
MyJob: 
MyForum: 
MyLove: 
MyWish: 
MyFile: 
MyIntro: 
MySex: 
Status:  Online
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 05:41 pm

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
foxglovepress wrote: Brian wrote: foxglovepress wrote: 24HourNut wrote: Brian, yes I agree, I took her differently for some reason. My bad!

Well it's confusing because I've actually talked of two ideas here.  IF Creation had some proof, then shouldn't it be brought into the science class?  The other idea is,

(Part OF the science class should be trying TO prove  Creation.  If in fact it can not be done, don't you think that alone is reason to probe into the two subjects?)

I think a science class designed TO prove Creation would be a good idea!  I think this is the idea you're not agreeing with Frank.

Hi, Fox.

I think I understand the second part now.  Here's my problem with that:  Science classes (as opposed to professional research) aren't meant to be testing grounds for new ideas.  Science class deals with much more certain areas, where there's little if any scientific controversy.  You might have a science class do experiments to demonstrate gravity by dropping various sized objects (since you're demonstrating a principle there), but you wouldn't have a science class trying to prove the existence of alternate universes.  Research scientists do that kinf of work, and students in science classes study the results once they've been confirmed.


science classes study the results once they've been confirmed.

Now THAT makes sense to me.  So what I'm meaning then is actually, that there should be Research science classes where they look for proof ?  I'm not so sure that science has proved at all that man came from primates though, so that shouldn't really be confirmed or discussed in a science class either, right?

Well, there really isn't such a thing as a "research science class".  Scientific research is done by academics, certainly, but they're not "classes", as such.  They're just people working on their doctorates or doing other research for publication purposes.  (Publish or perish, that kind of thing...).  Classes are for instruction, and you can't instruct until you do the research.

Now, "proved" is a difficult concept.  Whether or not man coming from earlier primates (man is a primate himself) is "proven" depends on what you mean by "proof".  In mathematics, a proof involves certainty (e.g., A squared + B squared = C squared).  Scientific theories don't get that kind of proof -- ever.   The Theory of Gravity is "proven" to the extent that it works, it explains the phoneomena we see around us, and the numbers add up.   But that doesn't mean that new information won't come in, and we won't need to change the theory (e.g., it's not well-understood how gravity works inside a black hole, from what I remember). 

In the same way, the broad outlines of descent from lower primates is "proven" by DNA analysis and archaeology.  That doesn't mean, though, that you could put a time-lapsed movie together (like the one that started this thread) and that the details would be 100% accurate.  Science is always looking for a deeper understanding of how things work, and since the evolutionary tree has a lot of branching and splitting off (not to mention dead ends) there's a lot of exploration to be done.




"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows
Saint
Forum-Blogger©
Pioneer100© Member

Polymath
Joined: 
Location: The Rocky Mountains, New Mexico USA
Posts: 3038
MyResume: 
MyJob: Math Department Head
MyForum: Saint's Printing Press
MyLove: Vickie Lynn and swimming
MyWish: I finally got an XBOX360!! Yeah!!
MyFile: [Download]
MyIntro: [Download]
MySex: 
Status:  Offline
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 09:46 pm

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
Why on earth would you not have a good discussion about BOTH in school? You can't just sweep the Creation under a rug, and say it doesn't exist.

TWEEET! Foul ball! You just subconciously assumed that Christianity is the only acceptable religion to teach in schools, yet I have a very nice Hindu student in my class right now. His parents are doctors and good Americans. Did Krishna create the Earth?

OK. What religion should we teach? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Oh, of course! “In God We Trust!” It’s got to be Christianity! America is overwhelmingly Christian after all.

Fine, which version of Christianity should we teach? Lutheran? Presbyterian? Baptist? Methodist? Catholic? (It is the oldest after all) Are Mormons Christian? Are you starting to get my point? No matter what the schools did, they'd never please everybody.

Perhaps they’re worried that Christian values and morals aren’t being taught to young people. They shouldn’t worry another second. Every teacher I've ever met has modeled and practiced nothing but the best of Christian virtues: honesty, integrity, respect, and dignity.

But who will teach Creation and religion if not the schools, you ask? Simple. The family and the Church. Who better to teach these things than the people that care the most about the children, their parents. Where better to learn than the Church?

The Pilgrims came to America because they didn't like their religion being controlled and dictated by the state. George Washington didn't like it. Thomas Jefferson didn't like it. Trust me, you won't like it either.

Creationism is best taught at church.




A^2 + B^2 = C^2
JustifiedByFaith
Pioneer100© Member

Without Jesus we fall short...
Joined: 
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 8391
MyResume: 
MyJob: 
MyForum: Politics & Religion
MyLove: Not of this world...
MyWish: 
MyFile: [Download]
MyIntro: 
MySex: Male
Status:  Online
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 10:03 pm

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
Saint wrote: Why on earth would you not have a good discussion about BOTH in school? You can't just sweep the Creation under a rug, and say it doesn't exist.

TWEEET! Foul ball! You just subconciously assumed that Christianity is the only acceptable religion to teach in schools, yet I have a very nice Hindu student in my class right now. His parents are doctors and good Americans. Did Krishna create the Earth?



Is there any credibility that Krishna created the earth?

It's not religion Saint that is the foundation of creation.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Genesis 1:1

It didn't just happen by chance and toss in a few billion years to make it sound more possible. If I throw up on the ground will it evolve back into what I ate as a whole?

 




Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you."

Matthew 24:4


Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation


Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 4182
MyResume: 
MyJob: 
MyForum: 
MyLove: 
MyWish: 
MyFile: 
MyIntro: 
MySex: 
Status:  Online
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 10:18 pm

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
JustifiedByFaith wrote: Saint wrote: Why on earth would you not have a good discussion about BOTH in school? You can't just sweep the Creation under a rug, and say it doesn't exist.

TWEEET! Foul ball! You just subconciously assumed that Christianity is the only acceptable religion to teach in schools, yet I have a very nice Hindu student in my class right now. His parents are doctors and good Americans. Did Krishna create the Earth?



It didn't just happen by chance and toss in a few billion years to make it sound more possible. If I throw up on the ground will it evolve back into what I ate as a whole?


If it does, I would suggest you chew more thoroughly next time.  ::rotfl::

Evolution (as we've been over several times now) is not a totally random process.  There are constraints on what possible outcomes there are.  If you roll a 6-sided die, there's no chance you'll ever roll a 7.  A fruit fly will never give birth to a human.  When you think about evolution, you have to realize that there are all kinds of restraints on randomness.  Not just anything can happen, which is why it's a slow process. 







"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows
JustifiedByFaith
Pioneer100© Member

Without Jesus we fall short...
Joined: 
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 8391
MyResume: 
MyJob: 
MyForum: Politics & Religion
MyLove: Not of this world...
MyWish: 
MyFile: [Download]
MyIntro: 
MySex: Male
Status:  Online
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 05:19 am

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
The elevations of the reproductive systems just came about that way I suppose because these genes got together and had a party and said, "Hey guys, let's place the female part and the male part at the same location and elevation to make the reproductive process more comfortable for both the humans.




Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you."

Matthew 24:4


JustifiedByFaith
Pioneer100© Member

Without Jesus we fall short...
Joined: 
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 8391
MyResume: 
MyJob: 
MyForum: Politics & Religion
MyLove: Not of this world...
MyWish: 
MyFile: [Download]
MyIntro: 
MySex: Male
Status:  Online
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 05:22 am

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
Brian wrote: A fruit fly will never give birth to a human.



Why not? Simply add a few more billion years and maybe a few more and it might happen?




Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you."

Matthew 24:4



Ads appear if not logged in.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation


Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 4182
MyResume: 
MyJob: 
MyForum: 
MyLove: 
MyWish: 
MyFile: 
MyIntro: 
MySex: 
Status:  Online
MyPOTD: 
Return to topBottom of page
 Posted: 05:47 am

Quote

Reply

PM

Alert
voters: 0      
JustifiedByFaith wrote: Brian wrote: A fruit fly will never give birth to a human.



Why not? Simply add a few more billion years and maybe a few more and it might happen?


The main reason is anatomical.  Fruit flies are much to small to give birth to humans.  And of course, as mammals, humans go through live births.  Fruit flies deposit eggs.

Remember, I didn't say a fruit fly could never evolve into a human, given enough time.  I specified birth.  If Generation 1 is a fruit fly, Generation 2 won't be human, because it can't.

There are all kinds of physical and chemical boundaries to what's possible in biology.  It's no more possible to have a fruit fly give birth to a human than it is to mix 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen and get salt.





"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

 Current time is 08:22 pm
Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   


Site Supporters
Posts Of The Day Mock Forums WowClassic



Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez