Jump to content

Creationism To Be In Gcse Papers


sittingrelaxing

Recommended Posts

If we keep on teaching our kids what we think we will keep repressing their creative imagination and brain power. we should teach them the options, the evidence and maybe then we'll see some progress.

That's why I said 'yet' morefire.

:wassnnme:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Chris P

    27

  • snowdog

    15

  • Arnold Layne

    14

  • dr_green_thumb1974

    14

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

damn horny alien buggers did some hairy monkeys whilst on a safari hunting trip and wala there where humanoid half breeds on the watery planet somewhere in that milky way galaxy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism as in "God did it " is just a simplistic myth that prevents any further constructive thought on the matter!, science fares no better, apart from some pretty basic information about the physical properties of elements and how to use them we are as ignorant of the true nature of the universe as the tribe of nomadic goat herders from which the whole thing originated........which is just as it should be........kick back and spark a doobie and forget about it, as the mighty Bill Hicks once said "its just a ride!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Myth" may be many things, but "simplistic" is certainly not one of them.

The fact is that most moderns just cannot grasp what "Myth" is, how complex it is and how to use it. Hence modern Christians have reduced the complex Myth of Genesis 1 - 3 down to a set of fundamentalist dogmas replete with a seven day calender! :( "Moses" would curl up and die laughing at the thought.

Approaching "Myth" with sharp logic and scientific atomisation - well now, there's a recipe for misunderstanding and ruin.

Anyhoo, back to the numinous.

But yes, lets give kids all the info and all the evidence. Censorship in schools? Whatever next? :yinyang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you 'think' this is the only universe ?

He didn't say it was the only universe, he said "our universe".

But doesn't universe mean everything ? So technically there can't be another "universe". Unless, im mistaking the use of the word in the current context.

sorry this post is kindah late, didn't see Page 2 :-/

Edited by blah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note, anyone interested in how far science has gone to try and understand where we come from and why we are here should definetly take a look at the programs on this website

It pretty much brings you up to date with the latest ides - some of it is pretty mind boggling, have a smoke and watch and you'll definitely have some revelations! :spliff:

EDIT: anyone interested in watching the bit relevent on Big Bang theory watch this movie

Edited by morefire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only position that science should be willing to substanciate is evolution. Not saying I concur with that position but that is what science by its belief set can only support, it is deterministic and allows for no free will or spiritual dimension. The age of reason, Logical Positivism, Comté the father of this school said that science would free use of supersticion and religion thus revealing the truth of our condition.

I was initially educated up to 1st year degree, (physical electronics, 1978) in science. Then moved to do actual qualification in social sciences so have a foot in both camps. The scientific interpretation, we all use the outcome, the modern machines, works. But it just feels on a emotional level, when tripping, when stoned, that there is more to life that just molecules and atoms interacting in an inevitable and eternal fashion. I belived in reincarnation before my accident, by logic, from anecdotal evidence from kids with spontanious recollection of past lives. Then I had my small NDE at time of accident. Science doesn't have all the answers, as a quantum physicist would have to admit to if being honest, so many anamolies. Atoms that know you are watching them and behave differently if you observe directly or conduct and then collect data.

Most physicist use the wave equation ackcnowledge the number that comes out and ignore the consequence of what that means about the nature of reality.

Common sense, you have an infinitly long tube and a particle within this tube, what are the chances of the atom/particle getting outside the tube. Common sense, no chance. The particle has to travel infinity either way to get to end of tube and a solid can't pass through a solid, so zero chance. Quantum physics says the chance of the particle being outside the tube is incredibly small, but not 0%. Science, I fart in your general direction. Just cause I feel that way about science don't mean I believe in creationism. What, is it just the two choices then, can't you believe in a vague 'otherness' idea without being able to explain it. The known, the unknown and the unknowable, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common sense, you have an infinitly long tube and a particle within this tube, what are the chances of the atom/particle getting outside the tube. Common sense, no chance. The particle has to travel infinity either way to get to end of tube and a solid can't pass through a solid, so zero chance. Quantum physics says the chance of the particle being outside the tube is incredibly small, but not 0%.

This is known as quantum mechanical tunneling - its what they use to get those really kool detailed pictures of bugs and things and what they will be using to make tiny tiny computers.

Tunnelling is a pretty basic effect , it is said that if you run at a wall for about 10^12 years on at least one attempt you'll hit the wall and come out on the other side as a result.

There have also been SuperSolids (think superconductor) created which can literally go through each other.

I read once that the knowledge of man is like a drop of water in the ocean.

Science will never be able to explain everything, thats just the way it is. I think most true scientists accept that they know nothing, and that they never will.

It would be interesting though to see what science comes up with in the next hundred years to see how narrow minded we really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Myth" may be many things, but "simplistic" is certainly not one of them.

Arnold what is complex about the biblical creation myth? God created it all , sounds fairly simple to me!

:headpain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Myth" may be many things, but "simplistic" is certainly not one of them.

Arnold what is complex about the biblical creation myth? God created it all , sounds fairly simple to me!

:yinyang:

If that were all, surely the various Editors etc would have simply left the dictat: "Jahweh created". But they did not. They wrapped it in a language we have no real modern equivalent of, "Myth". Why the strange language? Why the ridiculous order (light before the sun?).

Ask: What is the point of the writer(s)? What were they seeking to acieve? Most moderns make the mistake of seeking scientific truth from the text - Absurd! How could such be found there? All you find is Ancient people talking in Ancient language to other Ancient people. Question is, can Modern people still grasp Ancient language?

Its really not about days, weeks, numbers, orders of appearance as such. Its about giving Ancient Man a View of his place in existance which can sustain him.

Actually when you pull it apart and analyse the themes, its quite powerful. Celebration, The Sublime, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil, all seem very relevant to day IMHO. And none of them simple either :guitar:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "themes " of the creation myth may not be simple but the basic message is that God made it all. That is the "truth" that the fundamentalists believe, they dont concern themselves with the esoteric symbolism or allegorical meanings they actually believe that the human race and the planet earth is only 6000 years old?!.

:yinyang:

Any hoo its all a question of belief, science or religion take your pick after all both could be wrong!

and as you said Arnold most modern humans dont have the ability to fully comprehend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Yes .....o.k. to be to taught as a "belief" in say R.E. alongside all other religions & their beliefs too....

BUT

No.....No way should it be taught in the scientific field,its :ouch:

Exactly my views. It has just been on TV, their new Creationist Museum, it was quite funny, they had a child next to, what looked like a velocoraptor and said the man & dinosaur existed together. They enforce the views of genesis word for word and have computer graphics of the world wide flood and said it is what caused the grand canyon to be created. The Earth was created before the Sun 10,000 years ago.

How the fuck can you call that science. It is Religious Education, teach it there.

Debate it in English, Drama or General Studies, not science.

Science is based on evidence, the creationists view doesn't support the evidence.

What is worrying is that in a survey 50% of the U.S believe in the genesis view of creation. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting . Who created God though ?

Its not :doh: .

[Just to add some credibility to the post, i'm finishing up my MSci in Physics and my specialist subjects are quantum mechanics, nanotechnology and astrobiology.]

If you don't believe in a greater power then fine, lets quantify your belief that the world exists because it just does, here’s some science for you:

The Number N= 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 measures the strength of the quantum electroweak force divided by gravity. If that number changed by as little as 100 this universe would not even exist.

That is one of a dozen ‘natural’ numbers which mathematically describe the laws of our universe. How or why these numbers are the values that they are is incomprehensible (physicists have not even dared to try and explain it), to imagine that the numbers merely defined themselves by 'the way the world is' to more accuracy than we can even comprehend - thats just plain unscientific.

Let me introduce you to the fundamental Drake equation of astrobiology:

Number of Civilisations in existence = The rate of star formation x The fraction of stars with planets x The number of Habitable planets in each solar system x fraction of planets that ‘’evolve’’ life x fraction of such life that becomes intelligent…

The list goes on, but to cut it short, you’re looking at our existence in the universe coming down to chance at a rate of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,00. Optimistically.

So, supposing the Universe spontaneously existed, and we then ‘evolved’ out of chance, you’re looking at odds of:

1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

That’s 1 in a hundred billion billion billion billion billion billion.

And thats not taking into account the fact that the Big Bang remains a THEORY with more evidence (hidden mass problems) against it than for it. The only reason it is taught is because it is th eonly theory which stands up to basic testing (unless you wanna go superstring - a little too complex for this post)

I have to say, those are pretty slim odds. I think its not just a good idea to teach creationism, it HAS to be taught, because its alot more probable than anything else. Thats if you want to teach them the truth.

IMHO, people these days are too scared to beleive in god. So they put their blind faith into another illusion: science. In a recent poll, 90% of the students and Lecturers in my department beleive in God, that includes all the astrophysicists - the supposed 'big bang' supporters.

Seems to me like all the people who don't understand science but understand the conept of God want to beleive in science, wheras all the people that understand the science beleive in God.

yinyang.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rex Mundi
Its about giving Ancient Man a View of his place in existance which can sustain him.

Actually when you pull it apart and analyse the themes, its quite powerful. Celebration, The Sublime, Order and Chaos, Good and Evil, all seem very relevant to day IMHO. And none of them simple either :)

Yesterday (9th June, pm) I listened to a play on radio4, where Marylin Monroe was explaining her understanding of general and special relativity to Albert Einstein...

bloody interesting play, in it, Einstein explained how he was at some laboratory in the US where he met a local Cherokee indian, an old man, who was now just a cleaner or something, and the Cherokee said to Einstein, "I am not a Cherokee, but you are", meaning that in the past the Cherokee was the centre of his own universe, and knew all there was to be known to live in his unverse, but now this Indian knew that he was no longer ithe centre of his own universe, .... hard to explain here

I'm not explaining it properly, I recommend listening to it, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/saturday_play.shtml

it's got me interested in learning more about the Cherokee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy Terms of Use