How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

Pro

5755

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:18 PM

eabeam - 2013-04-29 2:59 PM

TriMyBest - 2013-04-29 10:28 AM

turtlegirl - 2013-04-29 1:03 PM

Of course, we also teach that a lot of what is in the Bible are stories, parables, examples, things that didn't really happen (like the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, etc) but are told to teach lessons of God's love for us and His expectations for our behavior. You aren't supposed to have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This is the problem. The people who argue against proven scientific theories because it doesn't align with their faith view the bible as perfect and beyond reproach. They don't consider it man's possibly flawed interpretations of God's messages or a series of parables. Anyone viewing these things through that paradigm are unable to consider other possibilities, so those possibilites must be wrong.

Let's not forget that the Old Testament has been translated how many times?

Even if you accept that it should be interpreted literally and that the original authors' writings are infallible (two big if's for some, but not others).

However, this view also requires you to fully trust perfection in translations by people with unknown ability in both languages, unknown understanding of the universe at the time, unknown political agendas or pressures. (Remember that is a Priest or noble did not agree with your viewpoint, it could mean death.)

Something as simple as using context to understand the multiple meanings of a word could drastically change the meaning of what we read today.

You must've missed the really interesting back-and-forth between Brian and Sam about the Hebrew translation of the first passage of Genesis. There are texts that are recognized as the oldest texts of certain books. The oldest version of Genesis was written-down in 5th century BC.

The discussion between Brian and Sam was over the exact hebrew phrases in that first verse.

So you're right, the translation can have an effect. But modern scholars can see the first version that was written. So, not entirely open to fluid interpretation because there are people who can read ancient hebrew and latin and greek.

Christians usually accept that Young's Literal Translation written in the late 1800s was the closest verbatim translation of each of the oldest texts into English. It makes it really tough to read, but it is a direct translation.

There are also concordances (Strong's, Cruden's) that attempt to translate each word in the bible from their original meaning independently. So when you read a passage, you can pull each substantive word and see what the earliest language and word was and then see what the definition was of each word in that language.

Here's another wrench in the works. Yes, we can go back and read the original Hebrew and it is identical between what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the existing text, so it's clear that continuity was preserved. And we have the ability to translate that text. And yet, languages still change, the meaning of words change, and there are things (i.e. plants and animals) described in the Bible that we simply do not know what they are or are extinct.

If you do believe that the Torah (OT) is literally the word of G-d, then we (man) cannot possibly hope to fully comprehend it's meaning. And of course humans have been eager and willing to create their own interpretations (wittingly or unwittingly) to manipulate others.

My Race Log

Pro

5761

Bartlett, TN

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

My Race Log

Pro

5755

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

Left Brain - 2013-04-29 4:45 PM

Goosedog - 2013-04-29 3:43 PM

I thought this going to be about foam ball solar system mobiles. Guess I should have started with the first post.

"the big yellow one is the sun!"

Isn't that the one that revolves around the earth?

My Race Log

Pro

5755

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Edited by BrianRunsPhilly 2013-04-29 4:03 PM

My Race Log

Regular

5477

LHOTP

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 million years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

I like this Brian guy. ^^^

My Race Log

Pro

5755

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

switch - 2013-04-29 5:00 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 million years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

I like this Brian guy. ^^^

Would be better if I'd gotten the timeline right. it's not 4 million years, it's 4 billion years. Carbon dating error.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

502

Tucson

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

switch - 2013-04-29 2:00 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 million years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

I like this Brian guy. ^^^

But where do you get the pre-existing bacteria, the pre-existing petri dish, the pre-existing antibiotics, the pre-existing food, and the pre-existing warm place?....oh yeah...evolution... mmmkay

Edited by joestop74 2013-04-29 4:05 PM

My Race Log

Champion

15211

Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 4:01 PM

switch - 2013-04-29 5:00 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 million years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

I like this Brian guy. ^^^

Would be better if I'd gotten the timeline right. it's not 4 million years, it's 4 billion years. Carbon dating error.

I was just getting ready to correct that.

Oh, and to have fun with that, earlier life forms with a significantly shorter life span (single celled and simple multiple celled organisms) dramatically speed up that evolution. It isn't until we get to the very complex multicellular organisms with life spans that span multiple decades that it is so much more difficult to see the change.

My Race Log

Expert

1951

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

I don't really have an issue with the idea that there might be a creator. I don't have an issue with faith either. I have an issue with those who would try to persuade others that their perspective on who that creator is and it's attributes are is right.. and all other images are "wrong". If one is to believe the Bible, then most of us are condemned people, because "few" find the right path.

My Race Log

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

My Race Log

Champion

15211

Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

That is essentially evolution.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two completely different concepts. One deals with the evolution of existing species. The other deals with spontaneous creation of organisms via abiogensis.

Edited by crowny2 2013-04-29 4:12 PM

My Race Log

Pro

5761

Bartlett, TN

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 4:07 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

I don't really have an issue with the idea that there might be a creator. I don't have an issue with faith either. I have an issue with those who would try to persuade others that their perspective on who that creator is and it's attributes are is right.. and all other images are "wrong". If one is to believe the Bible, then most of us are condemned people, because "few"choose the right path.

fixed it!

My Race Log

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:12 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

That is essentially evolution.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two completely different concepts. One deals with the evolution of existing species. The other deals with spontaneous creation of organisms via abiogensis.

Actually, I think that's Natural Selection. The Strong Survive. Which implies that the strong and the weak coexist initially. But eventually the strong get stronger.

My point on the Big Bang is that it is not a testable hypothesis. You cannot replicate it. You can only theorize that it exists. So it is no more science than intelligent design by Brian's definition.

My Race Log

Champion

15211

Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:14 PM

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 4:07 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

I don't really have an issue with the idea that there might be a creator. I don't have an issue with faith either. I have an issue with those who would try to persuade others that their perspective on who that creator is and it's attributes are is right.. and all other images are "wrong". If one is to believe the Bible, then most of us are condemned people, because "few"choose the right path.

fixed it!

Why not just state what you want to state instead of "fixing" someone's statement? I thought this type of response was frowned up? I now I've gotten lambasted for it.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

502

Tucson

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 2:15 PM

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:12 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

That is essentially evolution.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two completely different concepts. One deals with the evolution of existing species. The other deals with spontaneous creation of organisms via abiogensis.

Actually, I think that's Natural Selection. The Strong Survive. Which implies that the strong and the weak coexist initially. But eventually the strong get stronger.

My point on the Big Bang is that it is not a testable hypothesis. You cannot replicate it. You can only theorize that it exists. So it is no more science than intelligent design by Brian's definition.

Is that why we Tri? Survival of the Fittest!!

My Race Log

Champion

15211

Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:15 PM

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:12 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

That is essentially evolution.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two completely different concepts. One deals with the evolution of existing species. The other deals with spontaneous creation of organisms via abiogensis.

Actually, I think that's Natural Selection. The Strong Survive. Which implies that the strong and the weak coexist initially. But eventually the strong get stronger.

My point on the Big Bang is that it is not a testable hypothesis. You cannot replicate it. You can only theorize that it exists. So it is no more science than intelligent design by Brian's definition.

There is a ton of Theorectical Physics that you can't test either. Not directly. Doesn't stop it from being science.

ETA: And that is what Evolution is. The same organism exists. Over time some of the organisms change because of whatever environmental trigger happens to be occuring. Those that change to it (the strong) outlive those that don't (the weak). Selection. Evolution. Essentially the same. There are forces that nature inflicts that cause the organism to adapt/change/mutate or die out.

Edited by crowny2 2013-04-29 4:19 PM

My Race Log

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:15 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:14 PM

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 4:07 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

I don't really have an issue with the idea that there might be a creator. I don't have an issue with faith either. I have an issue with those who would try to persuade others that their perspective on who that creator is and it's attributes are is right.. and all other images are "wrong". If one is to believe the Bible, then most of us are condemned people, because "few"choose the right path.

fixed it!

Why not just state what you want to state instead of "fixing" someone's statement? I thought this type of response was frowned up? I know I've gotten lambasted for it.

Fixed it.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

My Race Log

Champion

15211

Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:18 PM

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:15 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:14 PM

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 4:07 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

I don't really have an issue with the idea that there might be a creator. I don't have an issue with faith either. I have an issue with those who would try to persuade others that their perspective on who that creator is and it's attributes are is right.. and all other images are "wrong". If one is to believe the Bible, then most of us are condemned people, because "few"choose the right path.

fixed it!

Why not just state what you want to state instead of "fixing" someone's statement? I thought this type of response was frowned up? I know I've gotten lambasted for it.

Fixed it.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Grammar I don't mind.

My Race Log

Champion

15211

Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

DOH! Double Post.

And I'm out. Got to catch the train!

Edited by crowny2 2013-04-29 4:20 PM

My Race Log

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:17 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:15 PM

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:12 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

That is essentially evolution.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two completely different concepts. One deals with the evolution of existing species. The other deals with spontaneous creation of organisms via abiogensis.

Actually, I think that's Natural Selection. The Strong Survive. Which implies that the strong and the weak coexist initially. But eventually the strong get stronger.

My point on the Big Bang is that it is not a testable hypothesis. You cannot replicate it. You can only theorize that it exists. So it is no more science than intelligent design by Brian's definition.

There is a ton of Theorectical Physics that you can't test either. Not directly. Doesn't stop it from being science.

See bold statement. That's what I'm replying to. Science either requires a testable hypothesis or it doesn't. If it does, then theorhetical doesn't belong in the "science" realm, it belongs in the philosophy realm... with religion...

My Race Log

Pro

5761

Bartlett, TN

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:15 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:14 PM

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 4:07 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

I don't really have an issue with the idea that there might be a creator. I don't have an issue with faith either. I have an issue with those who would try to persuade others that their perspective on who that creator is and it's attributes are is right.. and all other images are "wrong". If one is to believe the Bible, then most of us are condemned people, because "few"choose the right path.

fixed it!

Why not just state what you want to state instead of "fixing" some one's statement? I thought this type of response was frowned up? I now I've gotten lambasted for it.

If KateTri1 is offended by attempt at being funny, I will most certainly apologize to her, and I was going to change now to know on your post , but I think you might not find the humor in it!

Edited by jford2309 2013-04-29 4:22 PM

My Race Log

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

crowny2 - 2013-04-29 4:12 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 4:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

That is essentially evolution.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Two completely different concepts. One deals with the evolution of existing species. The other deals with spontaneous creation of organisms via abiogensis.

I had that once. The doctor gave me some salve and it went right away.

My Race Log

Member

432

Calgary, AB

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 3:08 PM

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. WERE YOU THERE?

There. Fixed that for ya.

Of course you can test the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Astronomers have been doing it for decades. They test the location and speed of galaxies, they test background radiation, they test the frequency of light emitted from stars. And the Big Bang (occurring roughly 13.7 billion years ago) is the best explanation that ties all these observations together.

My Race Log

Pro

5755

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 5:08 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 billion years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

Will they have evolved or will the stronger ones have gotten stronger by eating the sustenance now available with the passing of the weaker?

If science requires a testable hypothesis then what is the Big Bang? You can never prove or disprove that hypothesis. So it's not really science right?

Besides, there's no sound in the vaccum of space, so there wouldn't have been a big "Bang".

You can certainly generate testable hypotheses for the Big Bang. Cosmologists predicted mathematically that there should be a certain level of background radiation left over from the big bang. In 1963 two astronomers were able to detect this microwave radiation using radiotelescopes. You might not be able to see the big bang, but you can build a model for it that will lead to a testable hypothesis.

Sometimes you have to wait for the equipment to be developed, sometimes you have to wait for the right conditions. There's a story about testing part of Einstein's theory of relativity where he showed mathematically that a large enough object should exert enough gravitational force to bend light. There was an eclipse and two teams were dispatched to sites on the earth where there would be a total eclipse. One team got rained out, the other proved Einstein was correct (and that Newton was wrong). Random geek trivia for y'all

My Race Log

Master

2477

Oceanside, California

Subject: RE: How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one!

joestop74 - 2013-04-29 2:03 PM

switch - 2013-04-29 2:00 PM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-04-29 3:55 PM

jford2309 - 2013-04-29 4:49 PM

And so, over billions of years, we see man—who starts out as some primordial ooze, slime—and, he becomes primitive protozoan. Somehow—magically, accidentally, mysteriously— non organic matter, nonliving matter, gains a spark of life; and, you get a one-celled organism, a protozoa. And, given a few billion years, that becomes an un¬segmented worm. And then, that un¬segmented worm becomes a fish. And then, that fish turns its gills into lungs and becomes an amphibian. And that amphibian gets tired of scooting along its belly, so it grows legs and arms And then, that amphibian becomes a reptile. And then, that reptile becomes a bird. And then, that, bird becomes a mammal. And, somehow, that mammal turns into man.

Seems like it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in a Creator to me!

And yet, you can replicate this on a smaller scale in a short period of time. Plate a few billion bacteria onto a petri dish with an antibiotic and some food. Put in a warm place. In a day, a few will survive and have evolved to become resistant. Multiply that by 4 million years and many orders of magnitude more organisms and it's not so unlikely.

eta: Religion requires faith, science requires a testable hypothesis.

I like this Brian guy. ^^^

But where do you get the pre-existing bacteria, the pre-existing petri dish, the pre-existing antibiotics, the pre-existing food, and the pre-existing warm place?....oh yeah...evolution... mmmkay

This nails my issue 100%.

Just because someone still has a biblical view of Creation does not mean that evolution should not be taught.

Natural selection and evolution exist in microbiology labs across the world.

Imagine fields such as oncology or immunology without it.

Why does it have to be an either or discussion?

We cannot explain the existence of both based on current knowledge, so the idea of censoring, stunting, or not pursuing answers on either end does not fly with me.

I went to MIT, and I knew quite a few people who had no problem being religious and having profoundly intelligent scientific minds.

Maybe because I went to school before Fox news, but why is it so offensive to say.

Here is the theory of evolution.

Here is what evolutionists believe and why.

Here is the current evidence that supports them.

Here is the evidence against as well as what it cannot explain.

Here are the current real-world applications in the science and medical community.

We can have scientists teach science.

Religions can determine who teaches their religion.

Parents can impart their values to their children without someone trying to prevent it or doing it for them.

(Which does not mean that ever school or Sunday school teacher agrees with everything parents say or believe).

Occasionally, the two worlds can get together and have some intelligent, non-24-hour-newslike discourse and debate that is respectful and not dumbed down.

Don't know what I want to say exactly, but I keep randomly thinking of Thomas who asked to see physical evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection.

My Race Log

How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one! (Page 5)

REGISTER TODAY