'n Vriendelike Veeltalige Internasionale Bymekaarkomplek
A Friendly Multilingual International Social Meeting Point

 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Bennie
Addict


Male
Number of posts : 392
Location : Johannesburg
Registration date : 2007-11-02

PostSubject: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:51 am

Schools' (r)evolution
Thabo Mohlala
19 November 2007 11:21


A clash between secular and religious conscience could unfold in South Africa’s education system -- and different interest groups are set to line up against one another.

The teaching of evolution to grade 12 learners from next year might trigger an uproar among South African parents, teachers and religious sectors.

Evolution, which will be offered as part of life sciences under the new grade 10 to 12 curriculum by public and private schools, is rated highly by education experts because they believe it teaches learners to think critically and analytically.

Its proposed teaching is bound to rattle established norms and beliefs because evolution theory, and its growing body of followers, invariably generates tension between secular, atheist scientists and conservative religions.

In the United States a group of Christian parents instituted legal action in 2005 to challenge the implementation of teaching evolution at schools because they felt it undermined their notion of God.

Josef de Beer, a lecturer in the faculty of education at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), said teachers of evolution might have religious concerns. “My experience in teaching evolution in a foundation-year programme at the University of Pretoria is that many students find evolution problematic because of their religious beliefs.”

At a recent conference at UJ, where teachers were trained in evolution, a teacher said: “I am disappointed about the fact that evolution attacks God’s creation. It also mixes Genesis with idol worshippers of Babylon, which were never there when God created planet Earth.”

Another said he thought the topic should be voluntary because he didn’t think it suitable for people who believe in God. “I am totally against evolution,” another teacher said.

Matters came to a head after snippets of a video, Tiny Humans: Finding Hobbits in Flores, was shown. The video traces the origin of tiny prehistoric humans somewhere on an Indonesian island. They are depicted as short and dark-skinned people. This offended some black teachers. They said that evolution was a racist theory. It “terribly undermines black people, everything bad gets a black colour. It means blacks were apes,” they said.

De Beer said there were genuine concerns about teachers’ preparedness. “I do not think that all teachers are ready for the challenge to teach evolution in grade 12 life sciences next year. There is an urgent need to train teachers to deal with this complex issue in the classroom.”

De Beer and Hugo van Rooyen designed a short course aimed at preparing and empowering teachers on how best to handle evolution in a classroom situation without inflaming religious passions. But Penny Vinjevold, deputy director general for further education and training, said the education department had offered a number of workshops and produced a guide for teachers and parents.

The department had been “sensitive to the views of a wide range of persons and attempts at all times to demonstrate this sensitivity” in introducing evolution. Teachers of evolution will need to be well trained.

No child would be compelled to “adopt” or “defend the viewpoint or any way subscribe to evolution”. So there could be no reason for parents to take legal action, Vinjevold said.

The department took into account the fact that different theories offered a variety of explanations on the origin of human beings. Evolution was one of such explanations and learners were not expected to believe it, but to see it as one school of thought, she said.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=329446&area=/the_teacher/teacher_features/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Warrefok
Entheos


Male
Number of posts : 1056
Age : 68
Location : Pretoria - South Africa
Registration date : 2007-10-18

PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:21 am

I'm all for it off course ...
The fundamentalists will crap in their underwear though ...
but since when do they hold a monopoly over our curricula ...
the National Party is long gone & forgotten thanks ...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Bennie
Addict


Male
Number of posts : 392
Location : Johannesburg
Registration date : 2007-11-02

PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:57 am

By Ken Derstine
25 August 1998




Book Review:
Summer for the Gods:
The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science
and Religion

by Edward J. Larson.

Seventy-three years ago, in the summer of 1925, a landmark
case took place in the town of Dayton, Tennessee. Known as the
Scopes "Monkey Trial," it was broadcast over the newly
developed radio networks and dominated the headlines of the newspapers
of the day, promoted as the "trial of the century."

The Scopes trial highlighted the conflicts and dilemmas over
religion and science that have plagued American culture throughout
the twentieth century. Author Edward J. Larson, a professor of
history and law at the University of Georgia, was recently awarded
the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for History for his book: Summer for
the Gods.
He had previously written on the subject in his
1985 book Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation
and Evolution,
where he focused on the ways the law has attempted
to mediate the creation/evolution controversy in America.


http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/scop-a25.shtml
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Bennie
Addict


Male
Number of posts : 392
Location : Johannesburg
Registration date : 2007-11-02

PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:01 am

I fear for the children.

"At a recent conference at UJ, where teachers
were trained in evolution, a teacher said: “I am disappointed about the
fact that evolution attacks God’s creation. It also mixes Genesis with
idol worshippers of Babylon, which were never there when God created
planet Earth.”

Another said he thought the topic should be
voluntary because he didn’t think it suitable for people who believe in
God. “I am totally against evolution,” another teacher said.

Matters
came to a head after snippets of a video, Tiny Humans: Finding Hobbits
in Flores, was shown. The video traces the origin of tiny prehistoric
humans somewhere on an Indonesian island. They are depicted as short
and dark-skinned people. This offended some black teachers. They said
that evolution was a racist theory. It “terribly undermines black
people, everything bad gets a black colour. It means blacks were apes,”
they said."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: .....   Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:57 pm

Ugh ... wot's new ...All of us who STUDIED Biology know this :


  • Ulula cum lupis, cum quibus esse cupis.

    • Translation: "Who keeps company with
      wolves, will learn to howl."



And moreover ,

You can kill the Messenger ... but you cannot kill the Message ...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:43 am


but since when do they hold a monopoly over our curricula ...

My sentiments exactly... Competition is good for any business, be it religion or otherwise.

Is the scholastic vision not intended to expand the mind, rather than limit it?

Why force/indoctrinate children to accept what you believe?

Belief is supposed to be a choice...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:20 am

The following is taken from http://www.capitalism.org/faq/religion.htm

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, because it
attempts to provide a theory of the nature of man, man's place in the
universe, and a guide to human action. But religion admittedly has no rational
basis, meaning: no basis at all. "Faith" is merely someone's
assertion (without evidence) that something is true. As a "guide" to
life, it couldn't be more dangerous. And it is becoming an increasing danger
to Americans as the 21st Century approaches. The religious right's efforts
to enforce religion and destroy our rights is all around us: laws preventing
abortion and assisted suicide, censorship, school prayer in public schools,
laws against homosexuality, laws mandating the teaching of "creationism."

and this...

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely
crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every
opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he
must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blind faith."

Thomas Jefferson
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:32 pm

Quote :
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely
crouched.
Quote :
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every
opinion.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he
must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blind faith."
eggsagly ... that IS what He professes in the Books ... BUT NOBODY wants to SEE it NOR interpret His Word !!!!

NOWHERE does He say : sit in your corner and shut your mouth and be blindstricken ...He said , in fact, ... there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see ...

He said : "COME , Let us REASON TOGETHER ...

and what's more : ... He said : To you I gave the FISH ...

Faith is ONLY BLIND if you do NOT WISH TO SEE ... He NEVER said to follow blindly ...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:43 pm

Quote :


HE SAID TO THEM, "LET THE
LITTLE CHILDREN
COME TO ME, AND DO NOT HINDER
THEM,
FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD
BELONGS TO SUCH AS THESE"
Mark 10:14

..... Let's face it ... NO ONE questions like a child does ... and if the schools do introduce evolutionism ... which is just a theory .... then they they should ALSO teach not to HINDER those who believe on HIM ... or question Him and have accepted Him ...
Back to top Go down
Warrefok
Entheos


Male
Number of posts : 1056
Age : 68
Location : Pretoria - South Africa
Registration date : 2007-10-18

PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:06 pm

SIMSI wrote:
Quote :


HE SAID TO THEM, "LET THE
LITTLE CHILDREN
COME TO ME, AND DO NOT HINDER
THEM,
FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD
BELONGS TO SUCH AS THESE"
Mark 10:14

..... Let's face it ... NO ONE questions like a child does ... and if the schools do introduce evolutionism ... which is just a theory .... then they they should ALSO teach not to HINDER those who believe on HIM ... or question Him and have accepted Him ...
That is your problem Simsi ... "He said ... "
Who says "He said ... " ???

You must turn to your "holy book" to "prove" He said ...
You can not quote from a book(s) that contradicts itself hundreds of times over and over again ...

Try explain to a child that 1+1+1=1 ...
You think you'll make any impression ... without asking them to blindly believe it ... ???

Try explain to a child that the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost are one ...
And at the same time that:
blasphemy against the Son may be forgiven ...
blasphemy against the Father may be forgiven ...
but that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven ...
But yet ... and still ... they are not three ... but ONE

The Christian concoction is simply unintelligible hogwash ...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: ...   Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:14 pm

Quote :
You can not quote from a book(s) that contradicts itself hundreds of times over and over again ...
.... YOU have to prove, Ware .... Hy wat beweer moet bewys , remember ...

Whoeva , there are 141 kastige "contradictions " which atheists/agnostici and the like have "pointed" out ... so far they have been shown to be wrong on 139 counts ... the two which have been found to be "contradictions " probably has to do with incorrect translations ...

As to children and their questions ... explain to a child or any adult why God accepted Abel's offer and not that of Cain ... Can you?

In any event , Ware .. it is a GOOD thing to teach evolution ... NOT a bad thing ... I stated above , and stand by it ... If you live with wolves you learn to howl like a wolf ... Therefore , let THEM make up their minds who and what to believe ... choice ... when I was taught about evolution ... I chose to believe God ... for He made sense to me ... There ARE things that we ALL fall over ... because we do not understand Him and His ways in full ...

Fact is that we had this discussion before ... scientists do make mistakes ... acrually they BLUNDER ... I told you before that when they tried to tell me and stuck to their story for more than twenty years that the potato contains only starches ... and twenty years thereafter changed their story .... that is where I truly and finally disbelieved them .... groping in the dark ...


Educate the children on both religion and evolution ... and then ... let them decide .. I did that others did ... ... and IF the tutors are TRULY devoted to their respective "sciences" (inteligences) ... then and then ONLY will they be able to make up their minds who and what to believe ...

It does not help at all to even TRY and explain "GOD" ... if you stand there and ramble off a few myths .. and compare them with 1+1+1=1 .. or stand up and say : "There must have been a big bang" (blind faith !!!) ... .. without being able to prove it ... (if you will ) ...

One needs to be spiritually awake alive and conscious of the subconscious ..Even Einstein blanked out on God's maths ... He fell flat on His face with quantum physics ... cause ... he did not understand it ... explain THAT to a child ... and I tell you now ... he or she will start THINKING ... and maybe understand why 1+1+1 ( THE HOLY TRINITY) can be ONE ... And how and why the Holy Spirit may NOT be blasphemed ...

Better yet , he may or may not begin or fail to understand how and why 1 what +1 what =2. ... Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes But , begin to understand why 1 apple plus 1 pear remain 1 apple plus 1 pear ... not easy , hmmmm?

Explain to him the unseen world ... but also tell him that the atom
(which causes so much destruction ) consists of empty space ...



“S
o, are atoms made of even smaller stuff? The answer to this question is yes.
Atoms are mostly empty space, ??????????????????but in the center of the
atom is a structure called a nucleus. The nucleus is a congregation of
particles. These particles are called protons and neutrons. Neutrons are
neutral, or have no electrical charge. Protons, however, carry a positive
electrical charge of 1. So, in a carbon atom, which has 6 protons in its
nucleus, the overall electric charge of the nucleus would be 6. However, a
regular atom is electrically neutral. This is because swirling around the
nucleus in what is called the "electron cloud". The electrons in the
electron cloud counteract the positive charges of the protons in the atomic
nucleus with their negative electrical charges. This generates the neutral
charge of the atom. The number of electrons and number of protons correlate in
a one to one ratio. This means that there are the same number of protons and
electrons in one atom. So, if an atom has 6 protons, like carbon, it will also
have 6 electrons. The 6 electrons each have a charge of -1. This means that the
total charge of all the electrons is -6, or -1x6. The charge of carbon's
nucleus is 6 (from the protons), so when you add the two: 6 + -6, you get 0,
which means that the atom, overall, has no charge. “




Ok, nuff said ...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:58 am

Science and religion made simple...hehehehe.... BigLaugh BigLaugh BigLaugh

On atoms....Firsty, definition of an atom.... Smallest "RECOGNIZED" division of a chemical element.

If it is true, that atoms consist of empty space, how do YOU explain that is takes (approx) 200 words just to make a crude description of them??? and that modern scientists have been studying atoms (empty space) for generations... and are still studying them....How bizarre!....empty space is EMPTY SPACE!....lol lol!



In the begining there was NOTHING, and God said, "Let there be light" and there was light.

The argument is ridiculous.... This is an argument of EMPTY SPACE and NOTHING
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:51 am

Hahahaha...this cracked me up.....pmsl....
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!'
And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a
whole lot better.Ellen DeGeneres,
US comedian and actress lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol! lol!
Back to top Go down
Bennie
Addict


Male
Number of posts : 392
Location : Johannesburg
Registration date : 2007-11-02

PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:44 pm

Drewberryboy wrote:
Hahahaha...this cracked me up.....pmsl....
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!'
And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a
whole lot better.Ellen DeGeneres,
US comedian and actress

Another question: In the beginning there was nothing.--- Kindly ponder

1) The creator is less complex than the universe?
2) The creator is equally as complex as the universe?
3) The creator is more complex than the universe?
4) Who created the creator as "In the beginning there was nothing."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:40 am

Drew ponders deeply....ummmmmm Let me see now


Nothing...Which means not anything...Which means there must have been something??? God perhaps???

The Creator Is the Universe? Oh sh$t! No one knows for sure...We can only speculate. Dunno
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:07 am

Ponder that! bom
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: SIMSI PONDERS   Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:44 pm

A CASE FOR THE CREATOR


Day 1

In the beginning,
Quote :
God created
NOT NOTHING
Quote :
but GOD created
(will elaborate on this later ) the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night". There was evening and there was morning - the first day. Genesis 1:1-5

Day 2

God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it and it was so. God called the expanse "sky". There was evening and there was morning - the second day. Genesis 1:6-8

Day 3

God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear" and it was so. God called the dry ground "land" and the gathered waters he called "seas". God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it according to their various kinds" and it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning - the third day. Genesis 1:9-13

Day 4

God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth" and it was so. God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning - the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14-19

Day 5

God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems according to their kinds and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas and let the birds increase on the earth." There was evening and there was morning - the fifth day. Genesis 1:20-23

Day 6

God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals, each according to its kind" and it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image and in our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number. Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. To all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground, everything that has the breath of life in it, I give every green plant for food" and it was so. God saw all that he had made and it was very good. There was evening and there was morning - the sixth day. Genesis 1:24-31

Day 7

Thus, the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day, God had finished the work he had been doing. So on the seventh day, he rested from all his work. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. Genesis 2:1-3

There is a lot of debate about how long biblical creation took. If people would read Genesis chapter one, they would know. Scripture makes it clear, God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night'. There was evening and there was morning. Creation took six twenty-four hour days.
- source : The Anointed One
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:54 pm

'
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:46 pm

The Laws of Conservation
The laws of conservation are basic laws in physics
that state which processes can or cannot occur in nature. Each law
maintains the total value of the quantity governed by that law (e.g.
matter and energy) remains unchanged during physical processes.
Conservation laws have the broadest possible application of all laws in
physics and are considered to be the most fundamental laws in nature.
In 1905, the theory of relativity showed mass was a form of energy and
the two laws governing these quantities were combined into a single
law conserving the total amount of mass and energy. This law says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. This fact leads to an inescapable question.


If matter and energy cannot
be created, how did they originate?
Where did the entire physical
universe come from? Again,it is impossible to create
matter and energy through natural methods.However, they do exist, so we find ourselves in a quandary. It would seem to the unbiased either
matter and energy made themselves from nothing or a supernatural
creator made them. Both answers violate the law of conservation. The fact that matter and energy cannot be created is consistent with the claim in Genesis which says God rested from his work and all he created.
This law of
science contradicts the
notion that matter came from nothing through natural means.
Bible believing theists understand the universe was framed by the Word of God and what is seen did not come from things that are visible. God is the one who calls those things that do not exist as though they did.

Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Because nothing that has a beginning and an end could have always existed.Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire
universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed.

The Law of Entropy


says closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and
from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate over time as they decay to a lower order of available energy and organization. Entropy always increases and never decreases
in a closed system. All scientific observations confirm everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder.
Because the available energy is being used up and there is no source of
new energy, the universe could not have always existed. If the universe has always existed, it would now be uniform in temperature,suffering what is known as heat death. Heat Death occurs
when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. It is a fact
that one day our sun and all stars in the universe will burn out.Electromagnetic radiation will disappear and all matter will lose its vibrational energy. Because the stars cannot burn forever and because
they are still currently burning, they could not have always existed
[i]


Last edited by on Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:57 pm

Because the stars cannot burn forever and because
they are still currently burning, they could not have always existed because they would have already burned out by now.
Some
believe the law of entropy cannot be applied to the universe because
they feel the universe is an open system and not a closed one. A closed system
is defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its surroundings. Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It has boundaries that cannot be crossed. The definition of the word universe is all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

If the universe is “all matter and energy”, how could it be an open system?
If the universe is everything, how can there be something else out there to provide more matter and energy?

The skeptic asks, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” God is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question, “Who created God?” is illogical. A better question would be, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?” Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning; therefore, the universe has a cause. It is important to stress the words “which has a beginning”. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so he does not need a cause. Einstein’s general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. Time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time.


There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: ...   Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:00 pm

SOURCE : THE ANOINTED ONE
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:43 am

There is a lot of
debate about how long biblical creation took. If people would read
Genesis chapter one, they would know. Scripture makes it clear, God
called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night'. There was
evening and there was morning. Creation took six twenty-four hour days.
- source : The Anointed One

That may be true, but I'm prepared to bet it's wrong..........

It must be remembered that Genesis presents the
earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).

Like the rest of the creation story, days 5 and 6 are once again peculiar in terms of the order of events.
On
day 5, God creates the fish and the fowl, which may be alliteratively
appealing but is an anomalous combination, don’t you think? He might as well have said, “Let there be no red meat. Only creatures that float and fly. No feet or legs allowed. Keep off the goddamn grass for one more day.”
Fish and birds. Strange, huh?
Then
day 6 comes along, the last actual day of creation, and God decides to
jam every single land animal, including human beings, into this 24-hour
period. Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth, and humans, all plopped down on at the same time. And if you are to believe the creationists, this superfluity of two and four legged creatures included the dinosaurs as well. All
of these living things crammed into one single day, including the only
creature made in God’s own image, yet the birds and fish get their own
day.
You’d think that human beings could have at least gotten a day of their own as well.
Verse 26 is especially odd, for it seems to imply that God had assistance with day 6 of the creation. Of course, perhaps he needed the help, since he left so much to do until the last minute. The first chapter of Genesis seems to indicate that God is nothing if not a procrastinator. Verse 26 reads:
And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let
them have dominion over the fish in the sea, and over the fowl in the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Us?
Our image?
Our likeness?
When did these other deities appear on the scene?
One
can almost imagine God, standing once again on some high mountain peak,
suddenly realizing all the work he has to do on the 6th and final day and suddenly realizing that he might need some assistance:
“Let
there be pigs, and sheep, and the Tyrannosaurus Rex, and dogs of every
kind, including the hairless ones that will occasionally be mistaken
for rodents, and the zebras and… Oh hell. Screw this. I made these days too goddamn short to get anything done. Zeus! Thor! Aphrodite, gimme a hand!” Must’ve been an amusing moment.
Back to top Go down
Warrefok
Entheos


Male
Number of posts : 1056
Age : 68
Location : Pretoria - South Africa
Registration date : 2007-10-18

PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:30 pm

SIMSI wrote:
Quote :
You can not quote from a book(s) that contradicts itself hundreds of times over and over again ...
.... YOU have to prove, Ware .... Hy wat beweer moet bewys , remember ...
Onus probandi ... Your argument is wrongly in reverse as usual Simsi ...

Who is it that alleges the bible to be the words of God ... ???
Who is it that professes the bible to be the words of God ... ???
Who is it that maintains the bible to be the words of God ... ???
Who is it that runs around the globe proselytizing and informing peeps that the bible is the so
called words of God ... ???

You are !!! ... The Christians are !!!
The obligation to prove your allegations that the bible is the words of God rests on your shoulders,
not the other way around woman ...

But we all know that the Christian asks one to blindly belief that the bible is the words of God ...
That my dear, is to ask one to leave one's brains behind the moment one enters your fold ...

As far as the contradictions in the bible is concerned, I will shortly, if Admin approves personal
forums,
post (again) what I wrote about the subject years ago. If that condition can not be met, I will
refrain from doing so. Me and you ran into countless dead-ends because you can never leave one
to argue his point to the end. You will forever flood the forum with endless irrelevant biblical
quotes, in the hope that the topic will die. And in most instances you were successful in doing just that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:30 pm

Hy wat beweer moet bewys , remember ...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold


Earth
and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus
or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different
lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material
that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from
the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further,
the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently
destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth)
date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric
dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include
minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years.
Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at
least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America,
Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do
establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any
formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the
independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's
actual age.

More at above address
Years run from Tishri to Elul


4027Tishri10 Adam Born
4016Tishri Adam placed in the Garden of Eden, Tree Covenant made
3997Tishri10 Adam goes into deep sleep, rib removed
3997Heshvan22 Eve Born
3993Nisan14 Adam Sins, loses Judicial life
3993Nisan16 Adam gets new ageing body, evicted from Eden, 7 Exedenic Times start
3993Iyyar25 Adam enters Eve, he first sleeps with her
3993Sivan6 Eve conceives Cain
3993Tishri1 First
Regnal year of Satan begins
3992Shebat Cain born
3990Tishri Abel born
3928Nisan Cain kills Abel in field, 11 times of Lamech’s Times before 33Nisan14
3897 Seth born
3792 Enosh born
3702 Kenan born
3632 Mahalalel born
3567 Jared born
3405 Enoch born
3340 Methuselah born
3153 Lamech born
3097 Adam dies
3040 Enoch
transferred so as not to see death
2971 Noah born
2488Sivan 7 Alienation Times start.
God says: They have erred/he is also flesh, accordingly his days shall amount to 120 years




2371 Noah's 600th whole calendar year
2371Heshvan10 God said to Noah: Go, you and your household into the ark (Genesis 7:1)
2371Heshvan17 Flood starts, downpour begins
2371Chislev27 Downpour ends
2370Nisan17 Ark hits mountains of Ararat
2370Tammuz1 Tops of mountains appeared
2370Ab11 Raven sent out (Satan, he had been abyssed for 1,000 years before flood).
Dove sent out and returns to Noah’s hand (5 angelic visits)




2370Ab18 Dove sent out again, comes back with olive leaf
2370Ab25 Dove sent out again, did not come back
2370Tishri1 Noah removed covering of ark
2370Heshvan27 Earth had dried off
2469 Shem born
2369 Arpachshad born
2368Sivan Sons of Adam born from this month onwards live a maximum of 480 years.
Sons of Adam born before this month lived a maximum of 960 years.




2354Ab6 Ham
fails to respect his father Noah, Shem and Japheth do. The first member of
Satan's seed after the flood is exposed, the battle between the seeds
recommences, 470,000 days before Joab's registration


2334 Shelah born
2304 Eber born
2270 Job
born before this year, since he lived to be at least 240 see Job 42:17 LXX.
2270 Peleg born, Sons of Adam born after this live a maximum of 240 years
2240 Reu born
2233Sivan Babel.
God splits up the languages and post flood false religion begins. 2
Prophetic Times, 720 years before the law.
2208 Serug born
2178 Nahor born
2149 Terah born
2021 Noah dies
2018 Abraham born
1944 Terah dies
1943Nisan14 Abraham crossed Euphrates at 75, First Abrahamic covenant inaugurated
(but not validated)
1943Sivan The
LCC promise made to Abraham at Genesis 12:7, 430 years before the law
covenant was made on 1513Sivan3.
1932 Ishmael born (Abraham 86, Genesis 17:1,25)
1919Tishri Isaac born (Abraham 100 Genesis 21:5)
1913 Isaac weaned, teased by Ishmael, 400 years of affliction start.
1885Nisan14 Isaac as good as
sacrificed (33½), Third Abrahamic Covenant made
1869 Shem
finally dies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1858 Jacob & Esau born
1844/1843 1844Tishri-1843Elul
Abraham died
1782Tishri Jacob visits uncle Laban & 7 years working for Leah start
1775Tishri Jacob marries Leah & Rachel, 7 years working for Rachel start
1768Sivan Joseph born, at the end of the 2 times of Joseph’s Times (Genesis 45:5-Cool.
1768Tishri Jacob finishes working for Rachel, starts 6 years for flock
1762Tishri Jacob finishes
6 years working for the flock and leaves
1752Tishri Joseph
is 17 and has dreams.
1739Tishri 7 years of plenty start, Joseph becomes Lord of Egypt aged 30.
Isaac dies aged 180
(Genesis 45:8, 41:46)




1732Tishri 7 years of famine start
1728Nisan Jacob aged 130 and family enters Egypt
is half way through the famine.
Half way through the 430 years in Egypt’s territory of Abraham & offspring




1711 Jacob died aged 147 (Genesis 47:28)
1658 Joseph died aged 110 (Genesis 50:26).
1597 Aaron born
1594Adar1 Moses born
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:40 pm

So who recorded all these events???? God????
Or was Adam born with a pen in his hand? and the ability to read and write without being taught...

The creationists, of course, cannot accept an age for the
earth of
approximately 4.5 billion years, and therefore must find some way
of
demonstrating that the radio-date ages are incorrect. In his
book Scientific
Creationism, Henry Morris lists several reasons why he believes
radio-dating is
unreliable and should be discounted. But as we can see, none of
these
arguments have any validity:



Creationist Problems with Radio-dating:


"Uranium minerals always exist in open systems, not
closed. . . Unless
the system is known to have been a closed system through all the
ages since
its formation, its age readings are meaningless." (Morris,
Scientific
Creationism, 1974, pp 140-141)

As we have seen, determining the amount of
"primordial" lead that
was present before radio-decay started is indeed a limiting
factor in the
uranium-lead dating method. However, the use of lead-204 as a
measuring stick
allows us to make a reasonably precise estimate of the amount of
original
non-radiogenic lead, since the various isotopes are chemically
identical and
always are moved at the same proportion. It is indeed possible
that enough lead
may have entered or left the sample to throw off the accuracy of
the date by a
few percent, and this is one of the reasons why the uranium-lead
method is no
longer used. But even such an error would not be enough to allow
for the
possibility of a 6,000 year old earth. (Keep in mind that Morris
is here
arguing that enough lead entered the system to change the
apparent date from
6,000 years to around 5 billion years, an error factor of almost
a million
percent.)
In any case, both the potassium-argon and the rubidium-
strontium methods
present precise methods of determining the amount of radiogenic
daughter
element, and the isochron method provides a precise method of
checking for
contamination.


"An even more important phenomenon by which these
balances can be upset
is that of 'free neutron capture', by which free neutrons in the
mineral's
environment may be captured by the lead in the system to change
the isotopic
value of the lead." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974,
p. 141)

While the capture of a neutron by an atomic nucleus is not
impossible, it is
a rare process which usually happens only in the presence of a
large number of
free neutrons (such as inside a nuclear reactor). There is no
evidence that
neutron capture can alter the ratios of geologic lead isotopes to
any noticeable
degree. Thus, capture of free neutrons might cause the observed
ratio to vary
by a few tenths of a percent, but certainly not near enough to
produce such
large errors as the creationists are postulating.

An additional problem is that neutron radiation is lethal to
life forms, and
a neutron flow large enough to produce the kinds of errors that
the creationists
are postulating would have killed all life and sterilized the
planet long ago.
The creationists have no explanation for how life managed to
survive their
postulated neutron capture.



"The uranium decay rates may well be variable".
(Morris,
Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 142.

The entire method of radio-dating rests on the fact that the
decay rates of
radioactive isotopes, their "half-life", is constant.
If the decay
rate was faster or slower in the past than it is now, the entire
method becomes
unreliable.
It is somewhat ironic that Morris attempts to use the argument
that "the
decay rates might have changed over time" as a criticism of
evolutionary
theory, since, according to an earlier chapter of his book, it is
the
evolutionists who claim that the basic processes of nature have
evolved over
time, while the creationists assert that none of the basic laws
of matter have
ever changed:


"It seems obvious that the evolution model would predict
that matter,
energy and the laws are still evolving since they must have
evolved in the past
and there is no external agent to bring such evolution to a
halt."
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 18)


"The creation model conversely supposes that the universe
was simply
called into existence by the omnipotence, in accord with the
omniscience, of the
Creator . . . The fact is, of course, all observations that have
been made to
date confirm the straightforward predictions of the creation
model; namely, that
the basic laws of nature are constant and invariable, and that
the basic nature
of matter and energy is likewise a constant. There is not as yet
the slightest
observational intimation that these entities are evolving at
all." (Morris,
Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp 17- 18)

Leaving aside for now the assertion that evolutionary theory
predicts that
the laws of nature "are still evolving" (an assertion
which has not
been made by ANY evolutionary scientist), we can see that Morris
is plainly
trying to have it both ways. The radio- decay rates of an
element are
determined by the strong and weak nuclear forces, which are in
turn regulated by
the laws of quantum mechanics, one of the most-verified of all
scientific
models. If radio-decay rates were different in the past than
they are now, as
Morris suggests above, then there must have been fundamental
changes over time
in quantum physics and in the structure of matter. Yet,
according to Morris,
such a fundamental evolution of natural laws has not taken place.
On page 18 of
his book, he asserts that the evolutionists must be wrong because
the basic
nature of matter (including, one presumes, quantum physics and
the structure of
matter) hasn't changed over time; yet on page 142 he is arguing
that the
evolutionists must be wrong because the basic nature of matter
(i.e., quantum
physics and the structure of matter) HAS changed over time.
(Later, we will see
the assertion that the speed of light, another basic property of
the universe,
must also, according to the creationists, have varied over time.)
One wishes
that Morris would at least be consistent in his balderdash.

In any case, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that
radio decay
rates might have differed in the past from their present values,
and there are
several reasons from quantum mechanics why one would not expect
them to
significantly vary at all. The strong and weak nuclear forces
which govern
radio-decay are very powerful, but operate at only very short
distances (less
than the diameter of an atomic nucleus). They are not affected
by temperature,
pressure, magnetism, or any other known physical phenomenon.
Even under the
most extreme environmental conditions which can be produced in
the lab, the
decay rates of radioactive elements have not been observed to
vary by more than
four percent--Morris's hypothesis requires that these rates must
have varied by
up to one million percent. Obviously, Morris's assertion that
radio-decay rates
may have varied greatly in the past is completely without
foundation.


"The daughter elements were probably present from the
beginning".
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 143)

As we have seen, estimating the amount of non-radiogenic or
"primordial"
daughter element which was present before decay began is a
problem (though not
an extremely large problem) with the uranium-lead method. In the
K-Ar and Rb-Sr
methods, however, there are methods of precisely determining the
ratios of
radio-element and radiogenic daughter element, as well as ways to
determine if
the sample has been contaminated.


"Modern rocks formed in 1801 near Hualalei, Hawaii, were
found to give
potassium-argon ages ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion
years."
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 147) "It would
seem that the
only remaining virtue of potassium ages is that they often yeild
ages of
millions and billions of years, and are therefore generally
compatible with the
evolutionary model." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974,
p. 148)

The implication here is that the potassium-argon method (and
by extension
all other radio-dating methods) are wildly inaccurate and give
widely divergent
dates, and that therefore evolutionary scientists simply save the
ages they like
and toss out those they don't like.
In citing the Hawaii data, however, Morris typically neglects
to mention the
whole story. Some of these tests were done on "pillow
basalts" which
form during underwater volcanic eruptions.

It was suspected by geologists that dissolved argon gas from the
surrounding sea
water might enter the newly emerged lava, and would not be able
to escape
quickly enough to dissipate from the rock before it cooled, and
that therefore
argon might become trapped inside the potassium crystals. To
test this,
geologists selected an area of basalt that was known to have
formed during an
eruption in 1801, and used the K-Ar method to date the outer
surface. The
average date obtained was 22 million years, thus demonstrating
that such rocks
were indeed contaminated and were not suitable for radio-dating.
As geologist
G. Brent Dalrymple reported, "The purpose of these studies
was to
determine, in a controlled experiment with samples of known age,
the suitability
of submarine pillow basalts for dating, because it was suspected
that such
samples might be unreliable . . . The results clearly indicated
that these rocks
were unsuitable for dating, and so they are not generally used
for this purpose."
(cited in Strahler, 1987, p. 206)
The remaining tests were done on each of the islands in the
Hawaiian chain.
And, since the Hawaiian Islands were formed several hundred
million years apart
by volcanic eruptions and are not all the same age (the large
island of Hawaii
is the youngest, and the islands become progressively older as
one travels west
along the chain), it should not be surprising that the
radio-dates given for
each island will differ from the others.
There are occasionally anamolous radio-dates which are
produced in various
laboratories, but these amount to only a few percent of the
total. In every
case, reasons for the discrepancy have been found--either
geological
contamination or errors in the testing process. None of the
creationists has
ever explained why, if all of the radio-dating methods are so
unreliable,
hundreds of different samples tested by hundreds of different
laboratories all
over the world, using a variety of different radio-dating
methods, have all
agreed on the same date for the age of the earth--approximately
4.5 billion
years.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Today at 11:21 pm

Back to top Go down
 
SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Gulu Walk 2008 - Jerusalem
» JOAS Special Edition 2008
» korean convention book 2008
» Pokemon X and Y: Mega Evolution and New Pokemon Game Looks
» JAMAICA'S NORMAN MANLEY LAW SCHOOL MAKES HISTORY!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sparkling Sparklers :: Sparkling Sparklers Forums :: Godsdiens - Religion-
Jump to: