Inside a Bible Belt Classroom

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"Oh, Father high in Heaven, smile down upon your son, who's busy with his money games, (Wall Street?) his women (Palin, Bachmann?) and his guns. (Wingnuts?).

Oh, Jesus save me....

And the unsung Western Hero killed and Indian or three, and made his name in Hollywood to set the White Man free. Reagan?

If Jesus saves, well then, he'd better save himself, from the gory glory seekers who use his name in death.
Right Wing Hawks?

I saw him in the city, and on the mountains of the Moon. His cross was rather bloody-he could hardly roll his stone."

Think about it.........................Kinda eerie, aint it?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

[QUOTE=BlueStreak;32623
"So, I asked this God a question, and by way of firm reply,
He said; I'm not the kind of God you wind up on Sundays........"
[/QUOTE]

"The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you, not in mansions of timber and stone. Split any piece of wood and I am there."---Jesus Christ

Dave

[piece-itpete]

There is still no proof of the theory of evolution. As biology is a hard science, both theories should be taught and examined - unless either side is afraid of that.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There is still no proof of the theory of evolution. As biology is a hard science, both theories should be taught and examined - unless either side is afraid of that.

Pete

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

The National Academy of Science says:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time."

There is all sorts of evidentiary support for the theory of evolution, and AFAIK no contrary evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.

OTOH, there is not one whit of peer-reviewed and broadly accepted evidence to support creationism (which BTW is not a scientific "theory"). Creationism has the same scientific standing as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

I'm aware of what a theory is

I love how the evolutionists use gravity as an example, 'gravity exists, so evolution does too!', even though anyone can clearly see for themselves that some sort of gravitational force exists, whether we have the explanation right or not.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The National Academy of Science says:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time."

There is all sorts of evidentiary support for the theory of evolution, and AFAIK no contrary evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.

OTOH, there is not one whit of peer-reviewed and broadly accepted evidence to support creationism (which BTW is not a scientific "theory"). Creationism has the same scientific standing as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

Of course creationism can be a legitimate theory.

Lack of contrary evidence does not prove a theory. The ability to predict based on the theory does. So far, not ONE SINGLE species has been shown to turn into another. And the modus operandi of evolution is that it is going on all the time.

Not enough time? How many centuries do you need for one little thing out of all these species?

I would consider teaching the kids NOT to question a theory dumbing down, as scientific method is the basis of hard science.

Pete

PS - "Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them." How's final entropy going for ya?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Of course creationism can be a legitimate theory.

How? Where, beyond the written word, is there any evidence to support it? Can you give me tested and verified evidence?

Lack of contrary evidence does not prove a theory.

Who's saying it does (other than Creationists who claim that their "theory" is valid because it hasn't been disproved).

The ability to predict based on the theory does. So far, not ONE SINGLE species has been shown to turn into another.

Species don't "turn into" another species. They give rise to new species through the process of mutation. The time that this takes means that no living person can observe the process from beginning to end - except, that is, with respect to viruses and bacteria. We've seen that happen tons of times with the rise of new species of drug resistant strains.

If you want to study longer term evolution, check out the Galapagos Islands, paying particular attention to finches, turtles and iguanas.

And the modus operandi of evolution is that it is going on all the time.

Yup! It is.

Not enough time? How many centuries do you need for one little thing out of all these species?

For more complex life forms like us it takes eons.

I would consider teaching the kids NOT to question a theory dumbing down, as scientific method is the basis of hard science.

Scientists are constantly questioning and testing theories in the light of new evidence but to do so on the basis of the thousands of years old folk legends of a semi-nomadic desert tribe is pretty much the dumbest thing I can imagine.

John

[finnbow]

Of course creationism can be a legitimate theory.

Yep, once it has a "body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Thus far, there have been no such facts and accordingly, creationism isn't a theory within the scientific meaning of the word.

In the meantime, I think the most appropriate word to correctly describe creationism is myth.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

How? Where, beyond the written word, is there any evidence to support it? Can you give me tested and verified evidence?

No, no evidence, but then neither can the evolutionists...

But good show. Both 'theories' have more to do with logical deduction than scientific method. Neither can be positively disproven at this point.

Of course, for a theory to be valid it used be have to be proveable. That is no longer the case with our agenda-driven 'science'.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Who's saying it does (other than Creationists who claim that their "theory" is valid because it hasn't been disproved).

Originally Posted by Boreas

Species don't "turn into" another species. They give rise to new species through the process of mutation. The time that this takes means that no living person can observe the process from beginning to end - except, that is, with respect to viruses and bacteria. We've seen that happen tons of times with the rise of new species of drug resistant strains.

If you want to study longer term evolution, check out the Galapagos Islands, paying particular attention to finches, turtles and iguanas.

Yes, according to evolution they 'turn into' a new species through mutation. Natural selection is not proof of evolution.

Originally Posted by Boreas

For more complex life forms like us it takes eons.

How many centuries have we been seriously intentionally breeding dogs? Why nothing new, even with the speeded up process?

I'll tell you what though, let's go simple. Jellyfish? Simpler. Worms?

Originally Posted by Boreas

Scientists are constantly questioning and testing theories in the light of new evidence but to do so on the basis of the thousands of years old folk legends of a semi-nomadic desert tribe is pretty much the dumbest thing I can imagine.

John

Much much better to go by a racist old man in a wooden boat?

Besides, there is no way to test evolution.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep, once it has a "body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Thus far, there have been no such facts and accordingly, creationism isn't a theory within the scientific meaning of the word.

In the meantime, I think the most appropriate word to correctly describe creationism is myth.

What experiments? The argument the evolutionists use for their lack of proof through prediction is that it takes too long. See above comment on logical deduction, which is what we're really both talking about.

Which would put evolution at parity with your last statement

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There is still no proof of the theory of evolution. As biology is a hard science, both theories should be taught and examined - unless either side is afraid of that.

Pete

I think both sides are afraid of that. IMO, the Creationists are more afraid. Losing that argument would not merely mean they are wrong, it would shake the very foundation (religion) beneath their feet.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I think both sides are afraid of that. IMO, the Creationists are more afraid. Losing that argument would not merely mean they are wrong, it would shake the very foundation (religion) beneath their feet.

Dave

And I think that the people who believe in evolution are afraid of the societal results of the "dumbing down" of our schools through the introduction of religious dogma as science. Count me as one of these folks.