Posted on 03/19/2009 6:27:05 PM PDT by freedumb2003
...
# Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun. # Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. # Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.* # Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
>>Betty.
Mary Ann.
Bailey.
Not even up for debate.
(especially the Bailey issue)<<
I thought that was universal — but my older brother went Wilma, Ginger and Jennifer down the line.
Go figger!
:)
I guess some people just gotta be different.
>>As to the strata and so forth, I don’t think God made the earth this way in order to confuse us. I think the model of catastrophism is the best model - that the worldwide flood was responsible for a lot of the strata. This occurred after creation, of course. I don’t believe that God put dinosaur fossils several feet under Eden, just to confuse us. “For God is not the author of confusion. . .” 1Co 14:33<<
But there is no proof of worldwide flood. To posit that one occurred but that God covered the proof of such a calamity undermines your thesis.
>>No, billions of miles observed from red shift don’t predate the beginning of the Universe. When God created the stars, he created them “with age,” like the mature trees. The light was visible at the time He created them. It didn’t have to travel billions of years first, while God waited. God doesn’t have to wait.<<
You posit God the Trickster. The light doesn’t have to travel that distance in the timeframe, bit if it doesn’t then it means God has broken His own rules and is deceiving His children.
>>He created light, you know.<<
And He gave it immutable properties that are either a) consistent or b) arbitrary. Should it be the latter, then physics is meaningless.
>>He created Adam a mature man. He did not start him as an ovum, get him fertilized and etc., the whole 20 years or what have you until maturity. He was a full grown man on the day he was created. Eve was a full grown woman. After that, though, His design of reproduction began, and we got Cain and Abel and so on through history. That is what is normal to us. But God is not constricted to what is normal.<<
So you hand wave away the billions of fossils that point to the evolutionary process that created Man? Again, you posit God The Trickster.
The fact that God can do anything doesn’t mean He does everything.
>>“to what end would God create a consistent physical Universe that can be measured and evaluated, cross-checked and consistency checked?”
For His glory. God created a stable, checkable, explorable world. It reveals His incredible ability. Think of one thing. Think of the human eye. What a piece of work. How many mutations, all positive towards its current end, would need to occur to get that eyeball to its current state? Millions. But you would believe that, rather than believe a loving and sovereign God created it? I find the intelligent design of a great Creator to be a far smaller ‘leap of faith!’<<
I think that a God who created a fantastic Universe which runs by consistent rules that can, over time and effort, be discerned and harnessed by Man is truly the evidence of His awesomeness. To reduce God’s creation to something that laypeople can understand is to make God quite small, indeed.
>>One can be a successful and learned scientist and still believe God created this world and all that is in it in six days. Scientific exploration, then, reveals to us the amazing design and ingenuity of God, rather than chance mutations over billions of years. “The spacious heavens declare the glory of our God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto neight reveals knowledge.” (Psalm 19:2)<<
100% agreement here. It isn’t chance that created us. Evolution is a stochastic process — hardly chance.
>>Physics and chemical reactions were designed by Him. I see no inconsistency between physical and chemical processes and six day creation. My son has a BS in Physics (UCLA) and is a six day creationist. He sees no contradiction, and uses his degree in his work on a daily basis in medical research.<<
I suggest that your son cannot work in modern pharmecology if he cannot understand evolutionary processes. And Physics rarely crosses to medicine.
>>If the absence of human fossils next to dino fossils proves that humans and dinos didn’t co exist, than the absence of snail fossils next to dino fossils proves that snails and dinos didn’t coexist, etc. There are an awful lot of species on this planet. I don’t think all of them have to lie fossilized next to dinos to prove that they existed at the same time. I would be interested to see, if it were available, a list of all the known species fossilized right near fossilized dino bones.
<<
There are none.
>>I would say that fossilized humans next to fossilized dinos would be scientific proof of their coexistence, however.<<
There are none, thus Fred and Dino never co-existed.
You are right in what you say, but what this institute is doing is still indoctrination.
Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the SunAnd how many know how long it takes our Solar System to revolve around the Milky Way Galaxy?
Anyone?
Bueller???
This doesn’t surprise me one bit. When I taught Physical Science our 9th graders coming in did not know how to measure with a ruler! They didn’t know the difference between inches and centimeters! And, altho we spent the first 6 weeks working on it (in every way we could think of) many STILL made mistakes when measuring (would put inches when asked to measure with cm’s!) Americans are bad at science because they could care less about it. A large number are mentally lazy.
That’s a sad fact. We can complain about schools all we want (and they certainly deserve much of it) but you simply cannot people who don’t want to learn.
Actually, they revolve around Obama...
I always had a problem with some students when we covered evolution. They would say they didn’t believe in it and weren’t going to learn it. I told them that if they refused to learn it they would never be able to make a smart argument against it. Otherwise they would say stupid things like, “If man came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys!?”
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/help/glossary/(namefilter)/s
The hint applies. You already got your morsel from me, now chew it over.
I think you should say it’s evidence, not proof.
All of them Democrats.
What???
What???
What???
It's over, kids.
>>scientific theory To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. It has to be internally consistent, based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena and demonstrate problem solving.
Pretty good summary. The implications are vast.
The important thing is to realize that there is not a hierarchy that goes from Guess to Hypothesis to Theory as with the lay use of the term “theory.” A Scientific Theory is the highest level attainable in Science. “It is just a theory” makes no sense when applied to a Scientific Theory.
>>I think you should say it’s evidence, not proof.
Perhaps. But from a falsifiable perspective, the lack of evidence of man and dino being contemporaries is pretty strong proof.
We don't really know what makes physics "work." What is clear is that there are different sets of rules for different circumstances; i.e., very small things are governed by different rules than are things like us, than are things that are traveling at very high speeds.
Answering why is always difficult, and in some cases, it may be impossible. But it's certainly clear that there isn't one standard set of rules. It could very well be that this is simply one more thing that we don't understand.
And note, while I don't believe in young earth, I don't think you can dismiss such notions out of hand.
>> We don’t really know what makes physics “work.” What is clear is that there are different sets of rules for different circumstances; i.e., very small things are governed by different rules than are things like us, than are things that are traveling at very high speeds.<<
True — but in trying to find those fundamentals, science needs to rely on a consistent and physical Universe
>>Answering why is always difficult, and in some cases, it may be impossible. But it’s certainly clear that there isn’t one standard set of rules. It could very well be that this is simply one more thing that we don’t understand.<<
Science operates from the assumption there is one set of rules (else nothing would be discoverable). It also admits we don’t know them all and may never know them all.
>>And note, while I don’t believe in young earth, I don’t think you can dismiss such notions out of hand.<<
I think it must be dismissed out of hand. Even a cursory glance at the evidence tells one that the Universe and its tiny inhabitant, the Earth, are billions of years old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.