My goodness. If creation is ever to be taught I'm glad it isn't you that is going to do it. :chuckle:
toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Squishes
New member
Yeah, we wouldn't want to derail that stunning research program.
But there are reasons for
thinking common descent
from either a single or
small pool of organisms is
likely, the most obvious of
this is the universal genetic
code.-----Alateone. While the universal genetic code can be used as a reason to think common ancestry from a small pool of organisms is likely, the code can also be used as a reason to think a designer engineered the perfect code that could be used to produce a wide variety of life in the best way possible.
thinking common descent
from either a single or
small pool of organisms is
likely, the most obvious of
this is the universal genetic
code.-----Alateone. While the universal genetic code can be used as a reason to think common ancestry from a small pool of organisms is likely, the code can also be used as a reason to think a designer engineered the perfect code that could be used to produce a wide variety of life in the best way possible.
From an article called evolution of the genome found at earthhistory.org: The biological instructions
that make an organism
what it is, be it plant or
animal, are coded in its
DNA. The code consists of
the mapping of 64 three-
letter codons in the DNA to
20 amino-acids (the
building blocks of proteins)
and a stop signal. As it
happens, this is but one of
more than a thousand
possible codes for building
proteins and orchestrating
an individual’s
development. Nonetheless,
the actual code is universal
to all organisms and has
been shown to be‘very near
to (and quite possibly at) a
global optimum for error
minimization’. All things
considered, it is the best of
all possible codes (Freeland
et al 2000, Itzkovitz & Alon
2007).
This is theoretically
difficult from a Darwinian
point of view, for two
reasons. First, in a scenario
where the first self-
reproducing organism
comes into existence
accidentally, we cannot
assume that the code used
would be the one we know
now; it could have been one
of many. We have to explain
why this particular code was
adopted rather than
another non-optimal, but
still adequate, code.
Second, the universality of
the DNA code cannot be
assumed to be evidence
that all life descends from
a common ancestor. There
is an alternative
interpretation: that the
code was designed for its
specific purpose, and used
universally because no
other code would have been
as good.
that make an organism
what it is, be it plant or
animal, are coded in its
DNA. The code consists of
the mapping of 64 three-
letter codons in the DNA to
20 amino-acids (the
building blocks of proteins)
and a stop signal. As it
happens, this is but one of
more than a thousand
possible codes for building
proteins and orchestrating
an individual’s
development. Nonetheless,
the actual code is universal
to all organisms and has
been shown to be‘very near
to (and quite possibly at) a
global optimum for error
minimization’. All things
considered, it is the best of
all possible codes (Freeland
et al 2000, Itzkovitz & Alon
2007).
This is theoretically
difficult from a Darwinian
point of view, for two
reasons. First, in a scenario
where the first self-
reproducing organism
comes into existence
accidentally, we cannot
assume that the code used
would be the one we know
now; it could have been one
of many. We have to explain
why this particular code was
adopted rather than
another non-optimal, but
still adequate, code.
Second, the universality of
the DNA code cannot be
assumed to be evidence
that all life descends from
a common ancestor. There
is an alternative
interpretation: that the
code was designed for its
specific purpose, and used
universally because no
other code would have been
as good.
Originally Posted by
Alate_One
That same passage refers
to the sky as having water
supported by a firmament,
a hard dome.-----Alate. The passage in question is not specific. Firmament only means an expanse. The bible does not tell us the exact nature of that expanse. There was a vast amount of water just outside the solar system that collapsed in toward the sun during the days of noahs cataclysm. the evidence for this water is ubiquitous in the solar system. whatever the firmament was, it held the water back.
Alate_One
That same passage refers
to the sky as having water
supported by a firmament,
a hard dome.-----Alate. The passage in question is not specific. Firmament only means an expanse. The bible does not tell us the exact nature of that expanse. There was a vast amount of water just outside the solar system that collapsed in toward the sun during the days of noahs cataclysm. the evidence for this water is ubiquitous in the solar system. whatever the firmament was, it held the water back.
The remnants of this water beyone the firmament can be found in the icy planetoids that lie beyond neptune called the kuiper belt. The effect of this water collapsing in toward the sun can be seen in the dry ocean basins and canyons on mars. The purpose of this outer shell of water was to protect the earth from the intense cosmic radiation coming from the milky way in the early days. There was also no magnetic field to protect fr6 this radiation. This was because the earths interior had yet to differentiate into mantle and iron core.
One Eyed Jack
New member
No.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Why do you think I said no?
One Eyed Jack
New member
I don't want public school teachers teaching creation in schools any more than I want lesbians giving sermons in church. They'll just screw it all up. Keep it at home and in the church -- those are the battlefields we control.
Screw it up more than it already is? You have a point there, how does a science teacher explain there being light on the first day, but the light source not being created until the fourth day?
Change an article. :up:
Breathe
New member
I have a son graduating from college in December with a History major, and a Religion minor. He would agree with you - the two are intertwined.
I do not believe that religion should be taught in a science class, however.
The educational system is so screwed up, that it should be taken from the government and given back to the private sector, private schools, parents and churches. That way the kids are not spoon fed the tripe that is called 'science'. Parents will have a choice in what their kids are taught.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Right, so companies like wal-mart can indoctrinate children into buying products they don't need? That's the part of the "private sector" that actually has money. I'm sure they'd love to educate your children.
If you want to indoctrinate your children into whatever silliness you want them to believe instead of science, feel free to do so.
Most parents know that public education has been the basis for the "American Dream" since the beginning. People that want to destroy public education can feel free to do so on their own nickel. Few school districts are actually failing, and nearly all of them are concentrated in inner city areas. Hmm,I wonder why?
Yea, Yea, Yea...Heard it all here before. :blabla:
Alate_One
Well-known member
The root of the word means "to hammer out" and a recent translation translates it as "vault". It's also referred to in Job 37:18. The sky is hard/strong as a molten mirror.
NASB translates it this way
| "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror? |
NIV like this
| can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze? |
This makes no sense with a modern understanding of atmosphere, but with a hard vault separating waters above and waters below, it makes perfect sense.
As does the imagery of the great dragon's tail in Revelation dislodging stars and having them fall to earth.
| And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. |
With our modern understanding we know that it is impossible for stars to fall to earth, in fact the earth would fall into a star if it got near.
The bottom line is the Bible was written by ancient people, who had an ancient understanding of how the earth and the sky "worked". And that is okay, because the Bible's message of salvation doesn't need modern science. Science simply isn't that important.
That's because it was well understood at the time to mean a hard dome that held up water above it, and within the done the sun, moon and stars were fixed. You can read extrabilical sources that were very familiar to the writers of scripture(and most early Christians) to find out the exact nature of the firmament. This is primarily from the book of Enoch. It is even quoted in the book of Jude.
This is a massive amount of speculation on your part. There is absolutely no scriptural or cultural context that would give you this interpretation. You're trying to make a passage in scripture match some kind of wacky scientific explanation. There's no Bilbical evidence that the firmament disappeared during the flood. Indeed the windows of heaven/ floodgates of the sky (the openings in the firmament) were not destroyed at the end of the flood but simply closed.
| Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; |
Skavau
New member
Being trivially dismissive is your most persuasive argument?
Alencon
New member
Because a dictionary cannot explain to me what a specific individual is using a specific word to mean at a specific time. The English language is full of wonderful nuances.
I didn't ask what "taught" meant. I asked what the poster meant by "taught."
- Status