PDA

View Full Version : How long has the Earth been around?



dog8food
04-20-2009, 06:58 PM
Does anyone ever consider this? I just came across this video and it got me thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2lqRG76n1o&feature=channel

It's strange that public schools only present one viewpoint (throught their textbooks) on the matter... they even pass it off with as much fact as "A is for Apple." yet it's clear science can only claim it as a non-factual theory. Hmmm...

What do you think? Should it even matter?

Williebee
04-20-2009, 07:00 PM
Longer than it's been flat.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
04-20-2009, 07:02 PM
A long, long time.

Next!

robeiae
04-20-2009, 07:12 PM
Three minutes in and I had to stop watching. The idea that "the laws governing matter, time, and space" had to be "created" is nonsense.

I say this as someone that believes in a higher power--the Judeo-Christian God to be precise--and when someone tries to make intellectual arguments from such a flawed basis, it should give one pause.

James81
04-20-2009, 07:18 PM
4.5 billion years.

dog8food
04-20-2009, 07:22 PM
Three minutes in and I had to stop watching. The idea that "the laws governing matter, time, and space" had to be "created" is nonsense.
Huh? Do you think this could also be the reason why textbooks only take one stance... because they "stop watching" or prematurely reject other ideas of earth's beginning before studying them in full?

Wayne K
04-20-2009, 07:24 PM
4.5 billion years.
..and one day.

Siddow
04-20-2009, 07:32 PM
I bet that guy is a TON of fun at campus parties.

Rachel
04-20-2009, 07:56 PM
It's strange that public schools only present one viewpoint (throught their textbooks) on the matter... they even pass it off with as much fact as "A is for Apple." yet it's clear science can only claim it as a non-factual theory. Hmmm...

What do you think? Should it even matter?

Well, the schools don't write the textbooks. And those that do most likely support the idea of evolution (about 99% of scientists do).

My opinion on if it should matter? I'm catholic, but I completely believe that certain aspects of evolution are true. Basically, they should change the name. "Evolution" makes it sound like it is entirely about evolving, and a person can believe in God and believe he created a world capable of evolving at the same time. If the theory of "evolution" is only that organism are able to evolve to suit their environment then I don't think it matters. When they tell kids that there was a "big bang" and a single common ancestor was created is when I have issues. And yes, that matters. They can't prove that any more than they can scientifically prove God's existance and if you believe it you are working on faith just as much as you do if you believe in God. That has no place in textbooks.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 08:00 PM
Huh? Do you think this could also be the reason why textbooks only take one stance... because they "stop watching" or prematurely reject other ideas of earth's beginning before studying them in full?
No.

But look, if an initial premise is flawed, it's kinda hard to make a valid argument, with regard to this subject matter or anything else.

Do you understand that "laws" of this nature don't need to be "created"? Such "laws" are decriptive of observable phenomenon and WE use them them to explain what does and what will happen. But the "laws" don't exist as such. They do not have an independent existence. So, they need never be created.

Jean Marie
04-20-2009, 08:03 PM
A long, long time.

Next!
I was going to say, since the beginning of time.

Or, since Genesis, having the same beliefs as Robovowel boy.

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 08:04 PM
Everyone knows scientists just sit around making stuff up to satisfy their anti-god lifestyles, and the jerkwads even refuse to accept, "poof, there it is" as a scientifically defensible theory. Oh, yeah. And they're all leftist commies, too.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 08:06 PM
Fizzy, it's "whoop! there it is"...

Wayne K
04-20-2009, 08:06 PM
Why can't we just teach the truth?

"We have no idea."

"lotsa theories, but no Fing clue."

Something along those lines.

Jean Marie
04-20-2009, 08:07 PM
Everyone knows scientists just sit around making stuff up to satisfy their anti-god lifestyles, and the jerkwads even refuse to accept, "poof, there it is" as a scientifically defensible theory. Oh, yeah. And they're all leftist commies, too.
Well, duh!

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 08:09 PM
Fizzy, it's "whoop! there it is"...
Creation by Tag Team?

benbradley
04-20-2009, 08:10 PM
Lemme get my two cents in here while I can...

Does anyone ever consider this? I just came across this video and it got me thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2lqRG76n1o&feature=channel

It's strange that public schools only present one viewpoint (throught their textbooks) on the matter... they even pass it off with as much fact as "A is for Apple." yet it's clear science can only claim it as a non-factual theory. Hmmm...

What do you think? Should it even matter?
Firstly, those "public" schools are GOVERNMENT schools, at least in the USA.

I'm actually listening while surfing around. This might be an embarrasment to this guy, but I found a photo of him back in high school at a science fair:
http://www.csicop.org/webmaster/creationism/

But really, do you want to give this Youtube guy time in high school science classes to promote his views? If so, we should also teach modern cosmology in comparative religion classes, and then what about Sunday School, don't you think it's only fair to also teach modern Scientific beliefs?

And without a doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/04/flying-spaghett.html) also deserves equal time.

BenPanced
04-20-2009, 08:10 PM
Everyone knows scientists just sit around making stuff up to satisfy their anti-god lifestyles, and the jerkwads even refuse to accept, "poof, there it is" as a scientifically defensible theory. Oh, yeah. And they're all leftist commies, too.
I get all of my information from the National Institute of Pulling Statistics Out Of My @$$!

Wayne K
04-20-2009, 08:10 PM
Fizzy, it's "whoop! there it is"...

I thought it was "Whoot there it is."

I can't hear lyrics.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 08:12 PM
Why can't we just teach the truth?

"We have no idea."

"lotsa theories, but no Fing clue."

Something along those lines.
But Wayne, we do have a clue. Lotsa clues, actually.

Surely, you accept that rain is not "tears from the gods," don't you? Surely, you accept the reality of gravity, don't you?

There are, indeed, many things that are just "theories," but those are not the same sorts of things as a "Theory."

Delhomeboy
04-20-2009, 08:15 PM
I thought it was "Whoot there it is."

I can't hear lyrics.

Actually, it's "Whoop! dey i'tizz!"

Wayne K
04-20-2009, 08:16 PM
But Wayne, we do have a clue. Lotsa clues, actually.

Surely, you accept that rain is not "tears from the gods," don't you? Surely, you accept the reality of gravity, don't you?

There are, indeed, many things that are just "theories," but those are not the same sorts of things as a "Theory."


I meant as opposed to teaching any of it as fact.

ETA; and I fully expect to be flung off this planet, if not by the Earth's lack of gravity , then by it's inhabitants.

benbradley
04-20-2009, 08:19 PM
here's the link I was looking for when I found the photo of that Youtube guy:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html

The 2001 Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair was held on April 16th and great fun was had by all in attendance. Fellowship is proud to be host to one of the largest Creation Science Fairs in the country, this year we had over 200 students present their projects. This is also the first year that Muslim students from the Al-Jannah Islamic school have been invited to participate; two of their students presented a project on human anatomy entitled "Allah (SWT) Created Me" which, while it was found ineligible for a prize due to a number of Biblical inconsistencies, did win a special Interfaith Outreach ribbon.

Williebee
04-20-2009, 08:21 PM
4.5 billion years.

at 2:14 next Tuesday.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 08:25 PM
I meant as opposed to teaching any of it as fact.
I would argue that there are many, many things that can be taught as "not fact." The "young earth theory" is one of those things. As is "creationism." As such, neither actually competes with the scientific Theories that it is claimed they oppose.

Rachel
04-20-2009, 08:25 PM
at 2:14 next Tuesday.

Is there going to be a new birthday thread?

robeiae
04-20-2009, 08:28 PM
at 2:14 next Tuesday.
Don't you mean 4:20?

Whoa...look at the colors, man! It's friggin' beautiful...

benbradley
04-20-2009, 08:32 PM
But Wayne, we do have a clue. Lotsa clues, actually.

Surely, you accept that rain is not "tears from the gods," don't you?
So that's what it is? But I read from Isaac Asimov that rain comes from a huge watering can that God uses.

Ya learn something every day...

Surely, you accept the reality of gravity, don't you?
Nah, we're stuck to the ground because the Earth sucks.

There are, indeed, many things that are just "theories," but those are not the same sorts of things as a "Theory."
Now don't go around mixing up similar-but-not-quite-the-same word definitions on us ... if you start using tactics like that, you'll have us believing that you're The Messiah in no time.

dog8food
04-20-2009, 08:33 PM
As such, neither actually competes with the scientific Theories that it is claimed they oppose.
Scientifically speaking, you might be correct. But the supernatural takes the scientific base away. How can you use science to prove/disprove intelligent design if science only studies our physical world?

robeiae
04-20-2009, 08:40 PM
Scientifically speaking, you might be correct. But the supernatural takes the scientific base away. How can you use science to prove/disprove intelligent design if science only studies our physical world?
To someone that believes in such things, you can't. It's a matter of faith.

And similarly, you can't use science to justify matters of faith. I watched more of the guy's video. He tries--incorrectly--to use logic to "prove" that the scientific theories are wrong. He make leap after leap, oblivious of his errors, then declares that therefore "God must exist and must have created the Universe."

You either accept God on faith, or you don't, imo. You can't have it both ways.

Regardless, a belief in God does not require a belief in creationism or a young earth theory. The Bible was not intended to lay out the foundations of science.

Wayne K
04-20-2009, 08:52 PM
The Earth is 6,000 years old.

Beer is 10,000 years old.

One may have a lot to do with the other.

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 08:56 PM
...and all this huff is wanting to teach creationism in the SCIENCE curriculum. That doesn't work since it can't stand up to the tenets of scientific method--which is what Rob is saying when he writes (in other words), science and religion are of totally different houses. Teaching creationism in the social studies curriculum (along with philosophy), in the form of comparative religions, is fine or at least better (unless, of course, this going to be an Only True Religion thing as well).

clockwork
04-20-2009, 09:03 PM
Venomfangx is an utter fool and a proven and self-admitted liar. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4)

He files false DMCA claims against other youtubers who disagree with him, censors comments and ratings on his videos and is "in league" (for want of a better term) with known Creationist votbot campaigns to drive the ratings of atheistic and alternative viewpoint videos into one starred oblivion.

I'm all for free speech wherever it comes from but, seriously, this is not the guy you want fronting a campaign for honest, informed, reasoned debate.

James81
04-20-2009, 09:08 PM
at 2:14 next Tuesday.

Damn, how could I possible afford a birthday present for Earth on my salary?


The Earth is 6,000 years old.



You should watch all the material by Kent Hovind where he sets out to prove this. Highly entertaining.

I mean, the man is obviously batshit crazy, but it's still entertaining.

I drove to work with oil in my car today. According to Hovind, that oil comes from the decomposed bodies of all our dead ancestors who were killed during Noah's flood.

dog8food
04-20-2009, 09:12 PM
...and all this huff is wanting to teach creationism in the SCIENCE curriculum. That doesn't work since it can't stand up to the tenets of scientific method--which is what Rob is saying when he writes (in other words), science and religion are of totally different houses. Teaching creationism in the social studies curriculum (along with philosophy), in the form of comparative religions, is fine or at least better (unless, of course, this going to be an Only True Religion thing as well).
So let me get this straight. The teaching of Earth's creation is biased in public school system since they only teach it using the science curriculum, and whether a child will get any altenate view or not depends largely on their parents (either teaching the kids themselves or sending them to religious schools, etc)?

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 09:18 PM
The teaching in the SCIENCE curriculum is reserved for teaching science and scientific-based information. "And then there was a miracle" can never hold up to scientific investigation. But that's the very reason why scientific subjects are placed in the SCIENCE curriculum, so they can be evaluated and critiqued based on the tenets of scientific investigation. There are plenty of other areas of the public and private school curricula where religions of the world can be discussed, to include their various views on the origin of the earth and the origin of life. And, yes. Virtually all of the specifics of basic philosophical-type instruction should come from the family because it is so variable between families, between regions of a single country, between countries, and between societies.

Oh, and by the way. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the earth or even of life on earth. It simply describes a process of biological change over time. I'll bet a paycheck you know virtually nothing about what the theory really says much less the basic pillars of scientific evidence that supports the theory (like most people pushing for inserting creationism into science based instruction). Try understanding something before you explain to everyone why it is so flawed.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 09:21 PM
So let me get this straight. The teaching of Earth's creation is biased in public school system since they only teach it using the science curriculum, and whether a child will get any altenate view or not depends largely on their parents (either teaching the kids themselves or sending them to religious schools, etc)?
It's not "biased." It's consistent. Do realize that a young earth theory--if accepted--would undo central tenets of not only geology, but of astronomy, physics, and chemistry?

What is "taught" in science classes in the public school system is what is learned from actual science.

Why should the schools "teach" a religious version, at all? What purpose does it serve?

clockwork
04-20-2009, 09:24 PM
Oh, and by the way. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life on earth. It simply describes a process of biological change over time.

I've lost track of the number of times I've said this to people. Seriously, I've had t-shirts made.

cray
04-20-2009, 09:28 PM
I've lost track of the number of times I've said this to people. Seriously, I've had t-shirts made.


:Wha:

but then when you say it again do you have to make more t-shirts indicating the new number of times you've said it.

doesn't seem like a very earth friendly thing to do :D

Rachel
04-20-2009, 09:30 PM
Oh, and by the way. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the earth or even of life on earth. It simply describes a process of biological change over time. I'll bet a paycheck you know virtually nothing about what the theory really says much less the basic pillars of scientific evidence that supports the theory (like most people pushing for inserting creationism into science based instruction). Try understanding something before you explain to everyone why it is so flawed.

Unfortunately my human biology professor would say differently. So would the textbooks I've had to read. And I think that's why this thread was started. You can believe in evolution/natural selection as it is scientific. But when you get into creation it shouldn't be in the textbooks because there is no proof of anything, only ideas and theories.

clockwork
04-20-2009, 09:32 PM
No, no, the sentence is printed on the t-shirt, you know... if - with the - ack! - @*7!$ - forget it. You broke my head. :D

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 09:40 PM
Unfortunately my human biology professor would say differently. So would the textbooks I've had to read. And I think that's why this thread was started. You can believe in evolution/natural selection as it is scientific. But when you get into creation it shouldn't be in the textbooks because there is no proof of anything, only ideas and theories.
Then your human biology professor should learn more about evolutionary theory. How can a change in gene frequencies have any bearing on the formation of a planet (earth)? And how can a change in gene frequencies explain the first appearance of those very hereditable entities? And a change in gene frequences is only one aspect of evolutionary theory.

regdog
04-20-2009, 09:40 PM
Public schools do not teach religion. Religion and religious based education is taught by religious schools.

Religion is not science. It is an unproven faith based belief system. And it should not be taught side by side as a fact based science.

The Creationist Museum teaches that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and carnivores where created after Adam and Eve were exiled form the garden of Eden.

Sciene and carbon dating have proven that dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before man existed and carinvores were not God's punishment for sinning.

They also teach the world is only 5000 years old. Something that has been proven false.

Misinformation about proven scientific fact have no business being taught alongside science as it's equal.

It is obvious that you prefer public schools teach a Christian agenda. That is not the duty of a public school.

There are countless religions in the world. Many, thousands of years older than Christianity. Why is it only the Christian POV you want taught?

If public schools teach the philosophy of one religion, then they must teach the philosophies of all religions to present a total point of view of all religious beliefs regarding the origins of earth and life. Not just the religion of your choosing.

Siddow
04-20-2009, 09:42 PM
Hey, quick, anyone know what the official motto of the USA is?

dog8food
04-20-2009, 09:43 PM
Unfortunately my human biology professor would say differently. So would the textbooks I've had to read. And I think that's why this thread was started.
Yep. And you're right, the issue isn't solely what some flawed textbooks teach, but also what some flawed professors teach with un-flawed textbooks.

regdog
04-20-2009, 09:45 PM
Hey, quick, anyone know what the official motto of the USA is?


MINE GIMME GIMME

Siddow
04-20-2009, 09:46 PM
MINE GIMME GIMME

No, silly, that's the spirit of Christmas.

regdog
04-20-2009, 09:47 PM
The Earth is 6,000 years old.

Beer is 10,000 years old.

One may have a lot to do with the other.

Where were they making beer for the 4000 years until Earth showed up?

regdog
04-20-2009, 09:49 PM
No, silly, that's the spirit of Christmas.


:o Oopsie

robeiae
04-20-2009, 09:52 PM
Hey, quick, anyone know what the official motto of the USA is?
E pluribus unim

Siddow
04-20-2009, 09:53 PM
Official US motto:

In God We Trust.

But we can't say it in our public (government) schools. A motto adopted by Congress, printed on our money, just don't teach it to our children in government schools. Weird, I think.

Rachel
04-20-2009, 09:54 PM
Then your human biology professor should learn more about evolutionary theory. How can a change in gene frequencies have any bearing on the formation of a planet (earth)? And how can a change in gene frequencies explain the first appearance of those very hereditable entities? And a change in gene frequences is only one aspect of evolutionary theory.

You forgot to mention that the authors/publishers of a great many textbooks should learn more about evolutionary theory. :D

dog8food
04-20-2009, 09:55 PM
There are countless religions in the world. Many, thousands of years older than Christianity. Why is it only the Christian POV you want taught?

Are you directing that question at me? When did I say I wanted only the Christian POV taught?



Religion is not science. It is an unproven faith based belief system. And it should not be taught side by side as a fact based science.

I agree that it's unproven BY science. At the same time Science shouldn't be taught as a fact-based belief system, which the mistake of many teachers and faulty text books out there.

Siddow
04-20-2009, 09:56 PM
E pluribus unim

Wrong!


A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

robeiae
04-20-2009, 09:57 PM
Official US motto:

In God We Trust.
I like mine better. ;)

But yes, Congress mandated the one you give as the official one. Still, I can say "E pluribus unim is the motto of the United States" and not be thrown in jail. Yet.

regdog
04-20-2009, 09:58 PM
Are you directing that question at me? When did I say I wanted only the Christian POV taught?


I agree that it's unproven by science. At the same time Science shouldn't be taught as a fact-based belief system, which the mistake of many teachers out there.

It is only the Chrisitan POV you have been presenting here as an alternative to science.

More facts have been proven in science than religion.

Siddow
04-20-2009, 09:58 PM
I like mine better. ;)

But yes, Congress mandated the one you give as the official one. Still, I can say "E pluribus unim is the motto of the United States" and not be thrown in jail. Yet.

But you can talk about God as a schoolteacher, and possibly lose your job for it.

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 09:59 PM
Science, if taught correctly, is never taught as a "belief" system. It is taught as a system of experimental evaluation and experimental proofs. It is not something that it believed, it is something that is proved or disproved by the scientific method. That's why "theory" means different things to the general public and to Science.

Williebee
04-20-2009, 10:01 PM
Might be a good time to remind folks to avoid "You" statements. Perhaps we can keep a non personal perspective to the thread?

dog8food
04-20-2009, 10:04 PM
More facts have been proven in science than religion.
Huh? How could you even make that statement? How did you define fact so as to embrace both scientific and religious boundaries? If I told you hundreds of millions of people with their religious beliefs regard their faith as fact, what would you say? They're wrong because they didn't use the scientific method?

robeiae
04-20-2009, 10:05 PM
At the same time Science shouldn't be taught as a fact-based belief system, which the mistake of many teachers and faulty text books out there.
Maybe. Do you have some evidence re those textbooks?

Regardless, "fact-based belief system" is oxymoronic. Belief systems are--by definition--not based in facts, at all.

Still, even if some teachers adhere to scientific theories dogmatically, what matter? Students still learn them as scientific theories. I mean, I could easily go into a long-winded lecture on the fundamental truth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I could relate it to all sorts of things. If I was doing such for a group of students, the primary issue would be relating the Second Law, such that they understand it. They need not soak up every word I say. I think we don't give people enough credit, in this regard.

BenPanced
04-20-2009, 10:05 PM
Hang on, kids. I feel a port coming on.

Who wants to help me tie down the china?

James81
04-20-2009, 10:06 PM
I like mine better. ;)

But yes, Congress mandated the one you give as the official one. Still, I can say "E pluribus unim is the motto of the United States" and not be thrown in jail. Yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "E pluribus unim" actually mean "In God we Trust"?

James81
04-20-2009, 10:07 PM
Might be a good time to remind folks to avoid "You" statements. Perhaps we can keep a non personal perspective to the thread?

Since we're reminding folks of things at this point, now is as good a time as any to remind people to brush and floss everyday and to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables.

Rachel
04-20-2009, 10:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "E pluribus unim" actually mean "In God we Trust"?

Out of many, one.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 10:08 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "E pluribus unim" actually mean "In God we Trust"?
It means "out of many, one."

James81
04-20-2009, 10:08 PM
Out of many, one.

Ah, my bad.

What's the fancy little Latin phrase for "In God we Trust" then?

Rachel
04-20-2009, 10:12 PM
Ah, my bad.

What's the fancy little Latin phrase for "In God we Trust" then?


In Deo speramus
:)

James81
04-20-2009, 10:12 PM
Incidentally, this is what I was thinking about:

Novus Ordo Seclorum

which means "New World Order." I was way off with my "in god we trust thing," but I can't resist a chance to bring up the New World Order, the all seeing eye of the Masons on our dollar bill, and the Illuminati.

Yes, I still put out milk and cookies for Santa Claus.

Williebee
04-20-2009, 10:13 PM
Latin translator (http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Latin) A fun tool to mess with conversations.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 10:13 PM
In Deo speramus
:)
For writers, we might say it's deus ex machina...

regdog
04-20-2009, 10:15 PM
Huh? How could you even make that statement? How did you define fact so as to embrace both scientific and religious boundaries? If I told you hundreds of millions of people with their religious beliefs regard their faith as fact, what would you say? They're wrong because they didn't use the scientific method?

Millions of people believing something doesn't make it true, provable, or a fact. It makes it a popular belief.

And religious theory does not belong being taught as an equal alternative to science.

Rachel
04-20-2009, 10:17 PM
For writers, we might say it's deus ex machina...

:ROFL:

regdog
04-20-2009, 10:18 PM
Ah, my bad.

What's the fancy little Latin phrase for "In God we Trust" then?

I got

In Deus Nos Fides

robeiae
04-20-2009, 10:19 PM
I got

In Deus Nos Fides
I think that means "In God and Fidel."

Wayne K
04-20-2009, 10:20 PM
You are all Rabidus populus

regdog
04-20-2009, 10:22 PM
Hang on, kids. I feel a port coming on.

Who wants to help me tie down the china?


Oh okay. I'll get the glasses

Siddow
04-20-2009, 10:26 PM
Port? Glasses? Is it after dinner already?

dog8food
04-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Millions of people believing something doesn't make it true, provable, or a fact. It makes it a popular belief.

And religious theory does not belong being taught as an equal alternative to science.
Thanks for answering.

Rachel
04-20-2009, 10:36 PM
Port? Glasses? Is it after dinner already?

It's five o'clock somewhere.

benbradley
04-20-2009, 10:58 PM
:Wha:

but then when you say it again do you have to make more t-shirts indicating the new number of times you've said it.

doesn't seem like a very earth friendly thing to do :D
Just do it on CafePress (the "pod" printer of t-shirts, mugs, mousepads and thongs) and update the file every time the number changes. Very "green" friendly.

Official US motto:

In God We Trust.

But we can't say it in our public (government) schools. A motto adopted by Congress, printed on our money, just don't teach it to our children in government schools. Weird, I think.
I'd put a little more cred in it being "The Official Motto of The United States of America" if it had been so adopted closer to the time of ratifying the Constitution rather than during the 1950's "Godless Commie" Scare a year before I was born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust).

I thought it was changed to "Trust, but Verify" during the Reagan Administration. Ironically (for Reagan), that would make it much more scientific.

Of course, I have no clue whether President Reagan verified the existence of God.

Are you directing that question at me? When did I say I wanted only the Christian POV taught?


I agree that it's unproven BY science. At the same time Science shouldn't be taught as a fact-based belief system, which the mistake of many teachers and faulty text books out there.
Yeah, right. Science is a "belief system" that you can discover things about the physical world through observation and experimentation. There's some quote that science is no more a collection of facts than a pile of bricks is a house.

But to me, "facts" aren't science - they may be the RESULTS of science, but science itself is method, a methodical way of discovering things about the physical world. The conclusions aren't always correct, but much of the power in the method involves telling how discoveries were made, so they can be repeated and, uh, Verified.

¡Una realización de la ciencia es que puedo hablar con la gente en todo el mundo, razonablemente comunicando con otras incluso cuando no entendemos un lenguaje común! Mucho gracias a Babelfish.

If anyone doesn't want to use the results of science, then as far as I'm concerned they can get off the Internet and walk back to their cave wearing the leather shoes they made themselves.

But you can talk about God as a schoolteacher, and possibly lose your job for it.
With the "zero tolerance for aspirin drugs" rules, the hyper-PCness and fear of lawsuits by Government School administrators, I wouldn't be surprised, though I interpret the intent/spirit of such a rule as preventing prostelitizing by teachers and administrators.

As a fun experiment in music, pop culture and religion, I've wanted to take this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg1PEoQ_cq8) and redo the lyrics:

Let's talk about God, baby
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things that can be
Let's talk about God!

Maybe I'll perform that for a UU congregation someday. :D

Science, if taught correctly, is never taught as a "belief" system. It is taught as a system of experimental evaluation and experimental proofs. It is not something that it believed, it is something that is proved or disproved by the scientific method.
Just picking a nit, nothing can be "proved" using the scientific method, things are only disproved (disproven?).

That's why "theory" means different things to the general public and to Science.
This "punning" of words, using multiple meanings with only one use of the word, is a propaganda technique. This has been a favorite technique of creationists when they say evolution is "only a theory." I've seen this a lot in religious and "spiritual" writing such as the sayings on church billboards: "Today is a gift. That's why it's called the present."

Rachel
04-20-2009, 11:04 PM
Just picking a nit, nothing can be "proved" using the scientific method, things are only disproved (disproven?).

"

I think the word is actually "support." Hypotheses can be supported or not supported. It is amazing how in science so many people shy away from the word "prove."

Every time I hear something lik "Studies prove that..." I think "No! Studies support the hypothesis that..."

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 11:10 PM
Just picking a nit, nothing can be "proved" using the scientific method, things are only disproved (disproven?).

I understand what you are saying, Ben, but even that is a matter of degree. I can experimentally demonstrate (in this case = prove) that one of the neurons in my animal activates a specific muscle group during a specific behavior. And I can demonstrate the connection is direct and I can experimentally demonstrate what the neurotransmitter is for that connection. I can also demonstrate (prove) that none of the other neurons in that animal also activate that same muscle group. And I can do that same set of experiments in 50 of 50 animals of that same species. I'd say I've proven that cell is a motoneuron for that muscle group, beyond doubt. It's when we start putting together experimental observations like these, to make further predictions/hypotheses/theories that absolute proofs have to instead become "current acceptance based on a preponderance of evidence." But preponderance of evidence is not a slippery thing. It requires the upmost of rigor and it has to survive countless serious attempts to disprove it before anything even approaches acceptance as a scientific theory.

benbradley
04-20-2009, 11:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "E pluribus unim" actually mean "In God we Trust"?
That's "E pluribus unum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum)"

Huh? How could you even make that statement? How did you define fact so as to embrace both scientific and religious boundaries? If I told you hundreds of millions of people with their religious beliefs regard their faith as fact, what would you say? They're wrong because they didn't use the scientific method?
No, something can be correct even if it's not the conclusion of a scientific investigation. And the conclusion of a scientific investigation can be wrong.

But having seen the progress in my lifetime and having read about radical experimenters such as Galileo and seen verification by those such as David Scott (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk), I'll bet on the conclusions of scientific investigations.

Hang on, kids. I feel a port coming on.

Who wants to help me tie down the china?
Aww, a little plate breakage is inevitable...

Roger J Carlson
04-20-2009, 11:21 PM
Does anyone ever consider this? I just came across this video and it got me thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2lqRG76n1o&feature=channel

It's strange that public schools only present one viewpoint (throught their textbooks) on the matter... they even pass it off with as much fact as "A is for Apple." yet it's clear science can only claim it as a non-factual theory. Hmmm...

What do you think? Should it even matter?I don't have a problem with people believing in a 6000-year-old Earth. I don't have a problem with people believing in a 15 billion-year-old Earth. I do have a problem with the amount of venom that passes between people in these two camps. I understand the reasons for it, but I think it's entirely unnecessary and wrong.

Here's why. In the video, the presenter says this:

"We are making a video series showing that you didn't come from the animal kingdom and that God loves you and he wants to do fantastic things in your life, but if you're going to keep rejecting him, there's not much He can do with you."

There is no place in the Bible that equates believing in a young earth with accepting God. There is no place in the bible that says a belief in an old earth is equivalent to rejecting God. These are entirely separate issues and those that bring them together are as guilty of heresy as those they condemn.

I think videos like this and the people that produce them do a vast disservice to the very cause they are promoting.

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Most scientific breakthroughs do not show past data to be wrong, since data are merely scientific observations. Most breakthroughs come from advances in technology that allow us to further those initial observations in a way that changes the interpretation of those original data.

williemeikle
04-20-2009, 11:38 PM
In Deus Nos Fides

You have a two nosed dog? How does he smell?

robeiae
04-20-2009, 11:40 PM
There is no place in the Bible that equates believing in a young earth with accepting God. There is no place in the bible that says a belief in an old earth is equivalent to rejecting God. These are entirely separate issues and those that bring them together are as guilty of heresy as those they condemn.

I think videos like this and the people that produce them do a vast disservice to the very cause they are promoting.
I agree. One of my favorite Bible passages is Philippians 2:3:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

It's a tough standard, no doubt. But from what I see in many of those pushing the young earth idea is the assumption that believing in that idea makes them "better" Christians. That mentality is vainglorious, beyond a shadow of a doubt, imo.

Accepting the idea--that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old--does nothing, imo, to make someone a better person. And being a better person is--ultimately--what trying to be a good Christian is all about.

NeuroFizz
04-20-2009, 11:54 PM
I agree. One of my favorite Bible passages is Philippians 2:3:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

It's a tough standard, no doubt. But from what I see in many of those pushing the young earth idea is the assumption that believing in that idea makes them "better" Christians. That mentality is vainglorious, beyond a shadow of a doubt, imo.

The same thing holds in the attitude of those who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible versus those who maintain a similar importance, but don't hold it to that standard of interpretation. And that right there is where much of the antagonism between religion and science crops up. There can be a huge gulf between faith and religion for many people and these kinds of things create and maintain that separation.

My response is simple and direct to those who profess to be "better" Christians. Unless your mother is a virgin, that is not a judgment you are allowed to make.

robeiae
04-20-2009, 11:58 PM
MY mother would never have engaged in sex-type-stuff! Next, you'll be saying she's not perfect!

Wayne K
04-21-2009, 12:01 AM
My mother is a virgin, ask my brothers and sisters.

ColoradoGuy
04-21-2009, 12:13 AM
It's a tough standard, no doubt. But from what I see in many of those pushing the young earth idea is the assumption that believing in that idea makes them "better" Christians. That mentality is vainglorious, beyond a shadow of a doubt, imo.
Yes. I've seen more than enough Christian-off competitions.

Williebee
04-21-2009, 12:17 AM
You have a two nosed dog? How does he smell?

With both noses at the same time. When he takes a really deep breath he floats like a puffer fish.

BenPanced
04-21-2009, 12:21 AM
You have a two nosed dog? How does he smell?
Terrible!

Roger J Carlson
04-21-2009, 12:21 AM
MY mother would never have engaged in sex-type-stuff! Next, you'll be saying she's not perfect!
"Because I feel I am not fit for marriage ; and because I wish to be like my father, and all my ancestors, who never would marry." -- Sganarelle (in Moliere's The Forced Marriage, 1664)

rugcat
04-21-2009, 12:59 AM
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.Isn't that the official motto of the P&CE forum?

robeiae
04-21-2009, 01:06 AM
Isn't that the official motto of the P&CE forum?
If not, it should be. Let's write it over the entrance-way.

Wayne K
04-21-2009, 01:17 AM
If not, it should be. Let's write it over the entrance-way.
and on their foreheads.

semilargeintestine
04-21-2009, 02:38 AM
I didn't read the entire thread, but the scientific age of the Earth and the universe is not separate from the age religion (specifically my religion) gives it, or 5769 years. I am an observant Jew, but I am also a scientist. The idea that physics, evolution, astronomy, the doppler effect, and the Big Bang are all in the Bible is not a new one. In order to find most of it, you'd have to read it in its original language--Hebrew. Evolution was being written about 600 years before Darwin by Jewish Torah scholars. The Earth as a sphere orbiting the sun was being spoken of around the same time, at a time when the Earth was the center of the universe (and flat!) as far as the rest of the world knew. It's all in there. I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone is even remotely interested.

dog8food
04-21-2009, 03:09 AM
I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone is even remotely interested.
Please do. It'd be helpful for me at least. Are you describing verses such as Isaiah 40:22 where it says "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."? Is the english translation of passages like these pretty close or pretty flawed when compared to hebrew?

Dale Emery
04-21-2009, 04:40 AM
But the supernatural takes the scientific base away. How can you use science to prove/disprove intelligent design if science only studies our physical world?

Science doesn't prove anything. It offers successively better explanations. An explanation is better to the extent that it precisely and reliably describes observations of phenomena, and precisely and reliably predicts future observations.

So science will not prove or disprove intelligent design. It will either describe or predict observations more or less reliably, more or less precisely than does intelligent design.

Dale

Siddow
04-21-2009, 04:46 AM
I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone is even remotely interested.

I'm remotely interested. :)

dog8food
04-21-2009, 06:48 AM
Science doesn't prove anything....

...So science will not prove or disprove intelligent design.
And that's my point. I wish people (at least a few science teachers that I encountered) wouldn't pass it off as such... it can be misleading, especially to children.

Death Wizard
04-21-2009, 07:05 AM
Everyone knows scientists just sit around making stuff up to satisfy their anti-god lifestyles, and the jerkwads even refuse to accept, "poof, there it is" as a scientifically defensible theory. Oh, yeah. And they're all leftist commies, too.

Ha!

semilargeintestine
04-21-2009, 07:08 AM
Well, not to get too detailed, because there have been books published on this very concept, but here's a basic run-through.

As to the creation of the universe: let's start with Gen. 1:1. In English, it is translated as: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. This is commonly thought to be "Heaven" and "Earth." However, this is incorrect. This verse actually refers to God's creation of all the matter in the universe. Essentially, this is religion's "Big Bang." This becomes more evident if we look at the Hebrew:

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

Maimonides, one of the greatest Torah scholars who lived in the 12th century, translates it a little differently. The first word (בְּרֵאשִׁית) is transliterated as be-reshit and usually translated as "in the beginning." However, this isn't entirely correct. Be-reshit actually means "with reshit." This is a reference to Hokhma (Prov. 3:19), one of the Ten Sefirot. There are several other references to the Sefirot. This leads to a different translation: "Through the Ten Sefirot."

This seemingly esoteric change has great implications for the text. The Ten Sefirot make up the inner being of God. They precede all parts of the universe, and the substrates of matter--from which everything eventually is created from--are born from them. So, if we take that into consideration, the text reads: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. However, the subtext using the Hebrew elaborates on this, transforming it to:

"Through the Ten Sefirot, God created, from absolute nothingness, the prime matter of the heavens and all it would contain and the prime matter of the earth and all that it would contain."

That sounds an awful lot like the big bang to me.

Moving on to inflationary theory, that basically states that the universe was super small and then expanded for a period. On a seemingly unrelated note, one of the names of God is שדי (Shaddai), meaning Almighty. Midrash tells us that this derives from "One who said Dai" (Dai meaning "enough"). This is a reference to how the universe expanded until God said, "Dai."

This naturally leads until another theory. The concept that in the early universe, light did not exist, as the universe was homogeneous. As the universe expanded, inhomogeneities clumped and light was formed. This matches up quite nicely with Genesis 1:3 - "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." It is also noted that this is not meant to be our sun, just general light.

This conveniently leads us into the concept of the Six Days of Genesis and its conflict with the 15 billion year age of the universe. Luckily, physics very easily solves this dilemma. First, though, we have to take a look at the calendar. The Jewish calendar puts us in the year 5769. So does this mean that the universe is 5769 years old according to Judaism? In a word, no.

On Rosh Hashana, we commemorate creation--it is the birthday of the world. This seems to indicate that Rosh Hashana is the birthday of the universe; however, it is not. Rosh Hashana actually commemorates the creation of the Neshama--the soul of human life. It is only into man that God breathes a part of Himself, and this is what Rosh Hashana celebrates. It is this day that the 5769 years begin counting--with the birth of Adam.

So this gives us two clocks. One that starts with Adam and one for the six days prior. This may seem like attributing a modern concept to an ancient text, however, in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate. Moses himself breaks the calendar into two parts: "consider the days of old, and the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32-7). Nachmanides, another great Torah scholar writing 1500 years ago, confirms this: "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts - 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."

So putting the calendar after Adam aside for a second, let's discuss the "other" six days. How does this match up to the scientific age of the universe? There is a hint in Psalms 90:4, where King David says, "1000 years in Your (God's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." While not entirely accurate, it leads us to the notion that time is different depending on your perception.

To explain this, we must turn to the text. The days of creation are ordered and numbered. But they are numbered in a strange way. The first day is numbered as such: "There is evening and morning, Day One." The second day, however, is not numbered "Day Two." Rather, it is "evening and morning, a second day." This pattern continues through the sixth day. Why the distinction? Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. He wrote this 800 years ago using a simple phrase. It wouldn't be until the early 20th century that Einstein would quantify this with his Theory of Relativity, stating that not just space was created in the beginning, but time as well, for they are connected.

And from Einstein, we are given the answer. If we look back at the universe, we can easily say that it is 15 billion years old. That is our perception--it is a correct one. However, what about the Torah? What is the Torah's perception of time? This is an important question, because as Einstein has proven again and again, time is relative to your location and your reference frame. I invite you to have a look at his Relativity Theory to understand how this works, but in science, a "theory" isn't just an idea--it's something that's been tested and tested and tested again and again.

So how does this property of time explain the discrepancy? We have to again turn to the Hebrew. The Torah starts with the letter Bet (בְּ). It does this because it is closed on all sides but one--the side facing forward (in Hebrew, it is read right to left, so forward would be right to left). Nachmanides expands on this, stating that before the universe, there was nothing--only God. But then there was a creation, and that creation was purely a physical one, in which all the matter of the universe was found. He even gives a dimension for the creation--a speck. Notice two things: A) this is further evidence of the Big Bang, as the universe started from a singularity--Nachmanides is describing this 800 years ago; and B) the letter Bet is three sided with an opening facing forward, and a small dot--speck--inside. It is the picture of creation.

This gives us an insight into God's (and therefore the Torah's) perspective of the universe and time. God existed outside the universe at its creation. This is evident in the use of "There is evening and morning, Day One." Because time began for God and the Torah at the instant of creation, there was no day two yet; therefore, it couldn't have been written as a "first day."

Without going into too much scientific detail, standard cosmology has determined how to quantify time as perceived from the early universe and relate it to how we perceive time today. A second then is equivalent to a million million seconds now. I'll write it a different way:

Time as perceived in the early universe: 1 s
Time perceived today: 1,000,000,000,000 s

This is standard cosmology and has to do with relativity. Because the universe is expanding and light travels at a fixed speed, time stretches as the universe stretches.

So let's match that up to the Torah. The Torah says six days. We have established that the Torah is viewing this from the beginning of time, so that would be six days. Now, looking back from our current vantage point, we'd have 6 million million days. What is that in years? Divide that by 365. I'll give you a second.

16 billion years. That's pretty close. But let's match them up day by day, and we'll find something extraordinary.

The calculations come out to be as follows:

Day One lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. Up until recently, that was the exact age modern cosmology gave. Some astronomers now put it at 13.74 billion years, but 15.75 is still a possibility. It's hard to tell scientifically, but I'd say the evidence shows that they match up exactly.

There's more. The Torah tells us what happens on each of the days. I invite you to look up some archaeology, cosmology, palaeontology, and the history of the world to see whether they match up.

They match up astonishingly close.

Now, as far as the Earth being round, the Earth is referred to as the terrestrial sphere in Talmudic texts. It is also said that the "sphere is stationary while the planets move," hinting at the Earth revolving around the sun. There is more, but I'll have to find it for you.

Okay, so this was more than a basic run through, but I got into it. Sorry!

Wayne K
04-21-2009, 07:42 AM
And that's my point. I wish people (at least a few science teachers that I encountered) wouldn't pass it off as such... it can be misleading, especially to children.

Religion isn't misleading to children?

Dale Emery
04-21-2009, 07:45 AM
And that's my point. I wish people (at least a few science teachers that I encountered) wouldn't pass it off as such... it can be misleading, especially to children.

Be careful with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that the strongest possible form of proof--mathematical proof--is beyond the scope of science. Just because a scientific theory isn't proven in a mathematical sense, that doesn't mean it's just somebody's guess, or that it's no better than anybody else's guess. To become a generally accepted scientific theory, a claim must be very strongly supported by existing evidence.

It's possible that teachers overuse the word fact. It's also possible that their use of the word allows for a minuscule amount of uncertainty. But my guess is that when most science teachers use the word fact, they're referring to theories that are so overwhelmingly supported by existing evidence that no competing theories come close to explaining the evidence so precisely or so reliably.

Dale

dog8food
04-21-2009, 08:38 AM
Religion isn't misleading to children?
is it?



But my guess is that when most science teachers use the word fact, they're referring to theories that are so overwhelmingly supported by existing evidence that no competing theories come close to explaining the evidence so precisely or so reliably.

So are you saying that it then can be justified as absolute truth because it's soooooooooo close?

semilargeintestine
04-21-2009, 08:43 AM
The reason you can't call something a "fact" in science is because you can't run infinite tests on anything. But relativity is FACT. Gravity is FACT. When something is tested again and again for hundreds of years without fail, you should probably accept it (even Newton's laws weren't completely wrong, they just needed to be modified a bit--pretty good considering when he came up with them).

dog8food
04-21-2009, 08:52 AM
Okay, so this was more than a basic run through, but I got into it. Sorry!
No apology necessary. That was great stuff. Thanks.

Dale Emery
04-21-2009, 09:05 AM
So are you saying that it then can be justified as absolute truth because it's soooooooooo close?

No, I'm saying that "fact" often means something slightly short of absolute truth.

Dale

Wayne K
04-21-2009, 09:08 AM
is it?


Yes it is.

Religion is taught to children as fact when it is not.

Matera the Mad
04-21-2009, 09:20 AM
2¢ Religion is one of the more dangerous ways people have of making themselves feel important.

benbradley
04-21-2009, 09:25 AM
And that's my point. I wish people (at least a few science teachers that I encountered) wouldn't pass it off as such... it can be misleading, especially to children.
Nor will Science prove or disprove that 26,535,897,932,384 angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster.

But I don't find that to be a significant limitation of science.

Dale Emery
04-21-2009, 11:03 AM
How can you use science to prove/disprove intelligent design if science only studies our physical world?

If the the intelligent designer is part of the physical universe, science could potentially detect it and make and evaluate claims about it.

If the intelligent designer is supernatural, then science can not demonstrate its existence. But science might be able to show that it is unnecessary to posit such a designer, by showing how each natural phenomenon currently attributed to the designer could instead arise from known physical mechanisms, and more strongly by showing that known physical mechanisms do indeed produce those natural phenomena.

The rub, I think, is that it's always possible to say, Yes, but what caused that? There will always be mechanisms for which science has not identified a yet more fundamental cause. So there will always be phenomena that science has not yet explained, and which someone so inclined could attribute to a supernatural cause.

The proponents of intelligent design as a scientific theory are generally careful not to claim that the intelligent designer is supernatural.

Dale