Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Michigan Science Curriculum; We want your feedback...NOT
Topic Started: Sep 13 2006, 06:41 AM (3,027 Views)
Administrator
Administrator
We can have this debate, as long as everyone realizes there will be no right or wrong. I think it's safe to say that life did not begin with Adam and Eve. Lets assume it did start in a primordial soup. Who put the soup here? Did it come from colliding stars?.......Who made the stars??? Did they come from the Big Bang??...Who created that?? God?? Who created God?? Which leads us back to faith. Be very careful with this debate if you want to have it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livonia Voter
Member Avatar
Principal
SJC
Sep 16 2006, 08:31 AM
In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven and generally accepted as being true.

That's a slight departure to how the word "theory" is used by non-scientists.

That doesn't mean that the theories aren't changed or updated. Atomic theory has continued to evovle from the Niels Bohr version we learned in chemistry class.

And of course it used to be accepted that the world was flat, and the dinosaurs were cold blooded. ;)


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmic
Member Avatar
Principal
I don't think evolution denies God's omniciscience or omnipotence. I believe they work in hand and hand. I can believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God and that the big bang created the earth. I can also believe that the big bang was intelligent design. As far as evolution goes, God can use any means he desires to bring forth life. Evolution doesn't discount that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jodygirlh
Principal
In a kind and thoughful manner(per Jimid), I will disagree CMIC. I think evolution does suggest that we evolved from the primordial ooze-so to speak. Further, if you believe in the big bang, then you cannot also logically support intelligent design or creationism.
Whatever anyone believes is obviously aok, my point was that kids should not be taught one over the other, when neither can be scientifically proven.
I was taught evolution in school. But this was also before the polically correct folks came in and decided we couldn't have 'Christmas or Easter' break, or Chrismas decorations on city property.

Someone mentioned this before, but in my mind, it becomes tiresome changing or failing to adopt rules/requirements based on the few that oppose rather than the masses who agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmic
Member Avatar
Principal
Hi Jody, :)

I can and do believe that God is in control and has created the world and that he is bigger than "evolution" or "creationism". I don't limit God or his abilities or plan. So, I can believe that he predestined the big bang and has allowed for the world to evolve the way that it has. I can also believe in Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans that God created. I am sorry that you don't think that I can logically believe that, but I do.

:) Touchy subject but so interesting! I am really interested in this line of communication. Hugs, Jody!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jodygirlh
Principal
Just difficult for me to see the logic CMIC-my problem, not yours!!!!

It is a really interesting topic for discussion!
I think we probably believe the same basic things, but get there differently CMIC!!

Hugs back at ya!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Livonia Voter
Member Avatar
Principal
cmic
Sep 16 2006, 10:00 AM
I don't think evolution denies God's omniciscience or omnipotence. I believe they work in hand and hand. I can believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God and that the big bang created the earth. I can also believe that the big bang was intelligent design. As far as evolution goes, God can use any means he desires to bring forth life. Evolution doesn't discount that.


I agree.

Or as I like to put it, evolution doesn't disprove God; it just gives us a peek into his toolbox. ;)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corwin
Member Avatar
Principal
SJC
Sep 16 2006, 09:31 AM
In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven and generally accepted as being true. 

In scientific terms then, evolution can not be considered a theory - since it is unproven.

Good discussion. I have said my peace - how do others feel it should be treated in the science classroom?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmic
Member Avatar
Principal
I think it should be taught. I don't want anyone teaching my children creationism except me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
What about the dinosaurs? :P

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
What does the Bible say about cavemen, prehistoric men, neanderthals?



Question: "What does the Bible say about cavemen, prehistoric men, neanderthals?"



Answer: The Bible doesn't actually use the term "caveman" or "Neanderthals," and according to the Bible there is no such thing as "prehistoric" man. The term "prehistoric" means "belonging to the era before recorded history" (dictionary.com). It presupposes that the Biblical account is merely a fabrication because the Book of Genesis purports to record events which precede the creation of man (namely, the first five days of creation - man was created on the sixth day).

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval (the Flood – Genesis chapters 6-9) upon the earth during which time civilization was utterly destroyed and men were forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe that men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly weren't half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human (hence the term cave-"men," men who lived in caves).

There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men half-ape crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, please keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview. They are not necessarily the clear leading of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves don't entirely agree with each other on the details.

Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view has become this idea that man and ape both evolved from the same ancestor, but this is certainly not the only plausible interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, the evidence in favor of this particular interpretation is lacking. For more information on this, check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.asp

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25; 3:1-20; 4:1-12). It is almost entertaining the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshaped tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave and hunched over like an ape. There is no way that scientist can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-evolved, intelligent, and upright.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
What does the Bible say about dinosaurs? Are there dinosaurs in the Bible?




Question: “What does the Bible say about dinosaurs? Are there dinosaurs in the Bible?”



Answer: The topic of dinosaurs in the Bible is part of a larger ongoing debate within the Christian community over the age of the earth, the proper interpretation of Genesis, and how to interpret the physical evidences we find all around us. Those who believe in an older age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, because according to their paradigm, dinosaurs died out millions of years before the first man ever walked the earth. The men who wrote the Bible down couldn’t have seen dinosaurs alive.



Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs though it never actually uses the word “dinosaur.” Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn (pronounced tan-neen; Strong’s #08577). Tanniyn is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles; sometimes it’s “sea monster,” sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and are found both on land and in the water.



In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles in general nearly thirty times throughout the Old Testament, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs. Behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15ff). Some scholars have tried to identify Behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus and the Diplodocus on the other had huge tails which one could easily compare to a cedar tree.



Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding Diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of Triceratops-, Pterodactyl- and Tyrannosaurus Rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans-cultural, geographically-unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo’s Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. Modern day reports of sightings persist though they are usually treated with overwhelming skepticism.



In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaur and man, there are other physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.



So, are there dinosaurs in the Bible? The matter is far from settled. It depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you. Here at GotQuestions.org we believe in a young earth interpretation and accept that dinosaurs and man coexisted. We believe that dinosaurs died out sometime after the Flood due to a combination of dramatic environmental shifts and the fact that they were relentlessly hunted to extinction by man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?



Question: "What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?"



Answer: It is not the purpose of this article to present a scientific argument in the Creation vs. evolution debate. If you are looking for scientific arguments for Creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis - http://www.answersingenesis.org, and the Institute for Creation Research – http://www.icr.org. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the Creation vs. Evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen."



A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.



For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.



The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."



Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.



However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."



If Creation is true, then there is a Creator to Whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the “religion” of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
The above articles are not necessarily the opinion of "fyi." I found them on this
website:

http://www.gotquestions.org/creation-evolution.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NFarquharson
Member Avatar
Principal
I have very strong feelings about this topic but I do not want to offend anyone. I will try to be as careful as I can. I was raised in a Christian (protestant) home and also studied science in college. My major was biology.

There is a wealth of evidence behind the theory of evolution and I personally do not think it is inconsistant with a belief in a supreme being. Many theologists and religious leaders would agree, but obviously others disagree. I think the theory of evolution should be taught in school, just like we teach the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, the theory of natural selection and the theory of light.

I agree with Mike that the "theory" of intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is also not at all the same as believing in the Judeo-Christian creation story as is told in Genesis. In a nutshell, intelligent design goes something like this:

There are so many incredible and complex things that exist in the world, such as the discovery that the universe seems to have a beginning point, the biochemistry of irreducibly complex systems like the eye, the intricacy and "genius" of DNA, the incredible human brain with its network of 100 trillion connections and extraordinary capacities, the uniquely human traits of an inner conscience that intuits a moral law, as well as our intrinsic desire for meaning and purpose, etc. THEREFORE, the world must have been created by an intelligent being.

It is that last sentence that is the leap of faith. Religion is also of course based on faith rather than proof. In no way do I intend to diminish the importance of faith and religion in our world, but it is not a science and it should not be taught in public school in this country. Intelligent design is not science either. It is impossible to find any evidence to support it, even though it is certainly a way to explain things that we do not understand...things that create a sense of "awe" we all experience when contemplating the compexity of life. At any rate, the teaching of faith and religion should be left to parents and/or their church or religious community.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic »
Add Reply