Proper Education Standards Prevail - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-02-2006, 08:43 PM   #31
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Evolution?
Creation?
Why can't they both be true??
When God was speaking to Adam and Eve he said "Go and replenish the earth"
REPLENISH = REPOPULATE DOES IT NOT????
Just a thought.
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 09:29 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


BVS,
Did you go to the original source yourself for the "2 meanings of creation" or are you just putting your trust in LivLuv being correct?

In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for creation is BARAH and means "to create something from nothing."

Where is this other meaning?
It's been a long time, and I really don't have a computer of my own right now so don't have the time to look it up, but if I remember right it's "asah" which actually translates to something like "make" instead of create. I'll have to do more when I get my computer back.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 10:33 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It's been a long time, and I really don't have a computer of my own right now so don't have the time to look it up, but if I remember right it's "asah" which actually translates to something like "make" instead of create. I'll have to do more when I get my computer back.
So, you knew that before LivLuv said anything about it?

I had never heard anything about there being two different meanings, so I googled it. Barah (one of many spellings of the same word) was the only word I could find for "create". The only thing I could find that came close to 2 different meanings was someone on a message board claiming that the word could be "interpreted" to mean something else.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 11:46 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


So, you knew that before LivLuv said anything about it?

I had never heard anything about there being two different meanings, so I googled it. Barah (one of many spellings of the same word) was the only word I could find for "create". The only thing I could find that came close to 2 different meanings was someone on a message board claiming that the word could be "interpreted" to mean something else.
Um, anytime you just Google anything regarding creationism, you're likely to get a load of bullshit for the first 298054728975 hits. I think it would be a tad more helpful to actually study the source itself and not a bunch of .com op-eds and blogs.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 11:47 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2popmofo
I personally attended and graduated from a private religious university. Our school taught evolution in all of it's scienced based curriculum, as the basic idea of evolution does not really oppose anything in Christianity. The origin of man and evolution are unfortunately frequently mistaken and confused by most conservatives/religion-based groups.

While I think intelligent design should not be taught in schools, I also think that teachers should not teach evolution as a way to "disprove the Bible or Christianity" as somehow unfairly seems to be more acceptable in a class room setting. As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion. Both of these ideas are separate in my opinion, and I have problems with one form of "teaching" to somehow be acceptable while the other is not.
I had an identical experience and I pretty much agree with everything here.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-02-2006, 11:55 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Um, anytime you just Google anything regarding creationism, you're likely to get a load of bullshit for the first 298054728975 hits. I think it would be a tad more helpful to actually study the source itself and not a bunch of .com op-eds and blogs.
So, by saying you "studied the source", you are saying that you studied a Hebrew bible and that you can read Hebrew. Is that correct?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 12:03 AM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


So, by saying you "studied the source", you are saying that you studied a Hebrew bible and that you can read Hebrew. Is that correct?
I can't read Hebrew, really wish I could, but I've looked at it with several people who do, people I trust, people who've studied Hebrew their entire adult lives, people who have no reasons or unerlying motives for twisting these words around, people from a wide range of denominations and schools of theology (because I'm too much of a skeptic to take a single person's word at face value, or multiple people from the same school of thought), people who prefer to study the source rather than version upon version upon translation of the text. It's been great for me living just yards from a seminary.

The creation story has become very important to me in the past five years or so. I'd never looked at it from any angle other than the shallow, inconsistent version I'd been spoon-fed since birth. A lot of my questions have been answered, and many more have come up that I haven't found time to look into just yet. If you're going to challenge my religious beliefs based on what languages I've learned to date, I find that a tad rediculous and a tad more insulting. I'm not even old enough to be in seminary yet, how would I have learned Hebrew?! All I'm saying is that I don't generally look to Google for scholarly material, especially something so important to me personally.

What this has to do with creationism in the public schools, I'm not really sure...
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:08 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
You know what they oughtta do to solve this whole mess?

Just tell the kids this:

"It is now time to study the Origins Of Life. There is plenty of information about this subject on the internet, the library, and other places. If you are curious about the origins of life, please do your own research and believe what you think is most correct. Now, on to the next subject..."
And deny them a proper education, rob them of the chance to appreciate modern biology and essentially cut off a potential career in fields where it is applied, that is wrong.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:11 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I'm surprised we would look at any educational matter using a "who cares if it is flawed" standard. Any challenge to evolution is considered by many to be a religious act - which is intellectually dishonest.
I don't think so, if you produce to me a human skull sitting in precambrian stratigraphy then you have either completely disproven evolution or proven time travel, that would be an honest and non-religious challenge to evolution, The facts however do not work against evolution too well

Animals die
Animals reproduce
Animals are have slight variations within species
These variations may be heritable

From those basic principles a mechanism of evolution (say Darwinian natural or sexual selection) may function.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:15 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
This issue seems like such a waste of time. Who cares of evolution theory is flawed? Religion or not, no human being can ever really have a definite answer. If ID is so important to these Republicans, they can start an ID Bible study group at their church or something.

I still find it ironic that this is actually an issue for public schools. Each of the private schools I went to taught evolution theory, as well as three or four other theories of creation. My highschool bio teacher was so into evolution, you'd think he was a collegue of Darwin's. What's that? Christians DO believe in evolution and ARE open to learning about it?
I care deeply if evolutionary theory is flawed, I care about important debates that can find the truth about punctuated equilibrium and spandrels or selfish genes and memes, they are productive avenues of discussion and debate - they improve knowledge (science is not the truth, it is the best approximation with the facts at hand and as such it is a progressive system of knowledge).


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This is not an either/or proposition.

History shows us how scientific theories are changed, redefined or simply tossed out. It is an end result of continued examination and discussion.

For political reasons, there is a strong desire to end all discussion.
Yes, the history of science is one of progressive accumulation and acceptance or rejection of ideas and facts, but in the case of Creationism and ID the facts simply do not support the contention and there is no serious scientific debate over them.

The debates going on in evolutionary biology are on the mechanisms of variation, the rates of speciation and the how we see it today and in the fossil record, all parties involved have a framework of knowledge called evolutionary biology and it has proven itself every time to be the best explanation for the observed patterns and facts.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:21 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I think many are trying to get a discussion to occur in the classroom. We've seen repeated statements (in our FYM history on this subject) that the discussion should not even occur.
No it shouldn't: for the simple reason that in a curriculum the school can only allocate a limited number of resources to teaching science and things have to get covered quickly. By trying to "teach the controversy" you are presenting a skewed view of the state of the science (namely that ID is just not, there have been no peer reviewed and published papers in relation to biology) to the detriment of the students.

Teach the facts in the science classroom (namely evolution which is both a fact and a theory), demanding equal time in public schools is an abuse of young minds and tax dollars.

That is leaving alone the first amendment issues since ID is endorsing a religious viewpoint (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:23 AM   #42
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by HeartlandGirl
I'm a teacher, so maybe I can shed some light on why many of us are so resistant to having ID taught in science classes.

Until intelligent design is thoroughly investigated in a structured and scientific manner like evolution, it isn't science, and simply, therefore, should not be taught in a science class. The scientific evidence supporting evolution so far overwhelms any scientific evidence of ID that it's ridiculous to consider them deserving of equal time in a SCIENCE class. My job as a teacher is to give my students the best available information and evidence. Anyone who has studied evolution in depth realizes that the evidence for it is overwhelming. Until ID can present a legitimate challenge to evolution based on scientific evidence, it doesn't need to be in the classroom.

And for those who say we might as well not teach anything about it and just tell people to research it for themselves and make up their own minds...that's ridiculous. That's like telling a student, "There are a lot of translations of this Latin poem on the Internet, so go find one and teach yourself some Latin." There is no substitution for learning in the classroom under the guidance of a more expert mentor.

Parents are, of course, advised to monitor what their children are learning in school, and if they want to, they can supplement those teachings with their own religious context--a religious context that does not need to be, and should not be, presented as science in public, non-religious schools.
Well said, HG.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:25 AM   #43
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


So, by saying you "studied the source", you are saying that you studied a Hebrew bible and that you can read Hebrew. Is that correct?
would this be an undeniably unaltered bible?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:30 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


It's silly to compare those issues to evolution. Slavery happened. The holocaust happened. We do not know that macroevolution of the human being happened (although that doesn't stop some people from teaching it as fact instead of theory).
Sorry? Homo Neanderthalis comes to mind as examples of homonids with morphological differences; the discovery of Homo floresiensis just two years ago also shows macroevolution of humans.

If you want to argue the point then why do we have a record of different and now extinct linneages of humans? Why do we see species radiation patterns that are consistent and why is the molecular evidence supportive of these observations? The morphological differences between human populations (races if you will) are a great example of macroevolution, not full speciation but variation by geographic and climatic condition.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:37 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution
It can be disproven, case in point the evolutionary pathyway for flagellum which was cited by Behe as the key example of Irreducable Complexity only to have the pathway discovered within years of publication of Darwins Black Box. The evidence used to support ID was in fact a piece that fit in with naturalistic evolution better.
Quote:
can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion.
No, the bible is riddled with innacuracies, for instance Genesis and the double creation of man ~ and everything that we understand about the universe is inconsistent with an infinite and omnicient power acting within the physical world.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com