No. You are pointing out your ignorance of it, while having nothing to substitute in its place.corrupt_preist said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Evolution be taught in Sunday School?
- Thread starter Fatmop
- Start date
Fatmop
Active Member
I agree with you, lilithu, in terms of what a public school is supposed to teach. But, arguments over my poor word choice aside, do you support bringing ID into science classrooms? Considering its lack of falsifiability and obvious implications of a higher power, does it belong next to the relatively empirical and objective theory of evolution in your children's 10th grade biology class?
preacherman
Member
Well I'm tired of everyone jumping around the main point of the question and providing little examples to sound smart, the question was should evolution be taught in Sunday School or not and I say no! If a scientist wanted to start a church about ID I could understand that but people go to church to learn about God. If people would look at how unbelievably amazing it is that we are here at all because of all the odds against our existence every second then they would all see how it is that a higher power had to be responsible.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
While I am no expert in statistical theory, I'd have to conclude that the average person considers the probability (odds) of an existent god/deity ("higher power") to be 50/50 (an "either/or" proposition).preacherman said:
The fact that I do exist is readily expressed as a 1/1 (100%) "probability".
Geez, what were the "odds" on that?
preacherman
Member
s2a its people like you I cant stand. There you are tryin to sound smart, which you probably are not trying to insult you, but your getting off topic again, look the question was should science, in Sunday School, Wait maybe your not that smart you would've already knew that. Yes you are here but is it easier to prove that by creative design or by chance. IM no statistical expert but the people who dont understand that are 100% scared of God or running from him. You know their is so quit denying. Is it by science that the moon is position just right that its gravity cause ocean tides wich blow wind and trees carry the wind which contain oxygen that are essiental to our surviving. That kionda sound planded and thats just one simple example.
Fatmop
Active Member
You're the one who went off-topic when you started preaching about "the odds against our existence." YOU were the one trying to 'sound smart' by pointing to probability. s2a called you on it.
Well, sure, it sounds planned if you leave all the other numerous planets out. However, imagine a planet where the moon wasn't positioned right - and it crashed into that planet, and caused said planet to careen into its sun. I'll bet you it's probably happened out there somewhere. So what's the probability that our particular moon happens to be orbiting that way? Not too low. Also, as s2a pointed out, bringing in the probability of something happening after it's already happened is a moot point.
Blatant insults. I may call a mod on this.
preacherman
Member
OK yes you prove my point, everything was designed for our planet.
ThatBoogieman
New Member
What my friend preacherman here is trying to say about the moon and probability and such is that there are so many factors in this universe that almost guarantee that a life-producing planet couldn't exist, that by sheer chance it is much more likely for Earth to have been created and maintained by a higher power. In fact, I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you gave a good example for what preacherman was saying, what happens in your example provides an even lesser chance for any planet with such varibles set just righ for life to survive. And don't just think inside the Solar Sytem either. We are conveinently situated in one of the safest places in The Milky Way: between the arms, far away from colliding asteroids and comets which subside within the dense arms of every spiral galaxy. Not to mention that because of this area between the arms it makes spiral galaxies the safest of the three kinds of galaxies. The other two are far too unstable to support any chance of containing a planet with the variables set right to support life for half as long as this solar system has.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Hey preacherman--stop preaching.
Anyhow, we're all getting off-topic here. I propose that teaching creationism in the science classroom is just as ridiculous as teaching evolution in Sunday school, the latter of which we have all previously agreed would be sheer assinine.
And thus, no life has developed within them. The Milky Way does not exist because it is what we needed in order to form, we exist because the Milky Way was able to support us.ThatBoogieman said:
Anyhow, we're all getting off-topic here. I propose that teaching creationism in the science classroom is just as ridiculous as teaching evolution in Sunday school, the latter of which we have all previously agreed would be sheer assinine.
preacherman
Member
I love it you keep proving my points again and again yes we exist because the Milky Way was able to support us. The chances of that by design highly likely chance by accident, lets get real here. Its funny how everything in space seems to protect, support, and make the earth possible to live on. Its kinda like it was planned or something, wow!
JerryL
Well-Known Member
You whine like a mule.
Statistical expert? You aren't even qualified enough to rate "incompitent". How was your statistic arrived at? What was your sample-size? What did you do to establish representitive diversity? How was the bias on yor test rated? What was the raw data to come from the testing?
Which position is that BTW? You do realize that the moon is not in a fixed orbit? No of course you don't. The fact of the matter is that the moon used to be far closer than it is today and has been (and is) moving away from the Earth.
Then let's get into your horrible grasp of fluid-dynamics. First the tide: Anywhere the moon is, it will cause tides. The farther it is, the less the tidal distortion (because of less gravity). Tides were stronger in the past and will be weaker in the future. (BTW, the tides and efects of the moons gravity change depending on where the moon is relative to Earth-Sun alignment. Gravity interacts.
Now, your entirely false charicterization about wind: The primary source of "wind" is heat from the sun. It heats the surface of the Earth unevenly, heating more where it hits more directly (generally near the equator, but affected by season), and more on more absorbant surfaces (water reflects less heat than ice, for example). The interactions of existing sources of heat and cold (moving water for example) make this more complex, but at it's most simple, air near the ground in lower lattitudes is warmed. It rises. Air high up near the poles is coold, if falls. This creates a high-pressure zone in the north, and a low pressure zone in the south. Northern air runs south, displacing the warmer southern air which goes north.
Of course, the surface of the Earth is uneven, and different temperatures, and spins; so the whole system gets very chaotic; but I assure you that the moon has functionally no role in the process.
All Mars would need is a litte more heat, and life could exist there. Make it a little bigger, for example (allowing it to hold more of an aptmosphere, and thereby retain mroe heat) and you could put life there.
We don't know how common or uncommon planets capable of sustaining life are, we don't have a good sample-set (back to your statistical incompitence, I fear).
Your knowledge of astronomy is as abysmial as your knowledge of statistics...
by definition, comets orbit stars. They are not "out in the arms of glaxies". Further, we are not between arms, it is on the Orion spiral arm. We are about the middle of the arm (from center to edge). It's truely a pretty "average" place.
There's no support for that claim either. Where are you getting this utter hogwash from?
Solar radiation causing cancer, asteroid impacts causing mass-extinctions, volcanos, earthquakes, mudslides, floods... yea, real life-friendly.
The only problem is that Sunday School is a "school" based on the Bible so why should something be taught in sunday school that defeats the purpose of the school anyway?Besides even if it was forced it's not like churches would go along with it anyway.It would only cause a lot of trouble.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
then religion should be kept out of Science class for equil reasons... yes?
why teach something that defeats the very purpose of having a Science class in first place?
wa:do
why teach something that defeats the very purpose of having a Science class in first place?
wa:do
Fatmop
Active Member
MM hmm..
I wonder how many spiral galaxies there are in the universe?
I wonder how many of them have stars with planets around the edges of those arms?
I wonder how many of those planets are capable of sustaining life like Earth is?
We've pretty much come full circle there. That's what I was getting at in the topic title.
preacherman
Member
OK you give all the examples about space please tell me how space was form. Was there a a bang that created space. Something had to come from something. Nothing can come from Nothing. IOts that easy somthing had to start something.
preacherman
Member
Good point Jerry, Ill get back to you on that one