The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Surely the chicken must have come first. I feel that a creature before the chicken must have evolved slightly, creating a egg laying animal. This is because when I turn the question around I see that the egg must have come from somewhere - right?!
Page:
:D
Once us scientologists takeover it'll be fine.
We don't know. And does it make a difference? If the egg came, it hatched, we have a chicken. If the chicken came, we have a chicken.
The only difference is the former takes a small bit longer.
The only difference is the former takes a small bit longer.
Garin wrote:
> I dont understand why theres this eagerness to reconcile the 2.
> I doubt Geffdof really wants science in his religion anymore
> than science wants faith in it.
>
> When I was taught all this stuff at school many years ago no
> mention was ever made of the conflicts. In respect of
> creationism we told this is what some people believe. A
> rigorous evaluation compared to science wasnt needed. And I
> dont feel mentally scarred because of this. :)
No, I didn't mean that it had to be in any way rigorous, or an evaluation for that matter.
It's just a useful excercise in teaching kids how different people think. I'd in no way want to see Creationism taught as Science or the two reconciled, merely that it's a good excercise to show that some people don't believe in current scientific theories. If you're going to teach Science at a teenage and above level, you need to express that current scientific thinking may change over time (perhaps using Einstein as an example) and then that other people don't agree with current thinking, even without proof, and creationism is a good example.
But understanding something such as Creationism is useful in itself, as is how people perceive it. I guess this falls more under sociology than anything else, though.
> I dont understand why theres this eagerness to reconcile the 2.
> I doubt Geffdof really wants science in his religion anymore
> than science wants faith in it.
>
> When I was taught all this stuff at school many years ago no
> mention was ever made of the conflicts. In respect of
> creationism we told this is what some people believe. A
> rigorous evaluation compared to science wasnt needed. And I
> dont feel mentally scarred because of this. :)
No, I didn't mean that it had to be in any way rigorous, or an evaluation for that matter.
It's just a useful excercise in teaching kids how different people think. I'd in no way want to see Creationism taught as Science or the two reconciled, merely that it's a good excercise to show that some people don't believe in current scientific theories. If you're going to teach Science at a teenage and above level, you need to express that current scientific thinking may change over time (perhaps using Einstein as an example) and then that other people don't agree with current thinking, even without proof, and creationism is a good example.
But understanding something such as Creationism is useful in itself, as is how people perceive it. I guess this falls more under sociology than anything else, though.
I dont understand why theres this eagerness to reconcile the 2. I doubt Geffdof really wants science in his religion anymore than science wants faith in it.
When I was taught all this stuff at school many years ago no mention was ever made of the conflicts. In respect of creationism we told this is what some people believe. A rigorous evaluation compared to science wasnt needed. And I dont feel mentally scarred because of this. :)
When I was taught all this stuff at school many years ago no mention was ever made of the conflicts. In respect of creationism we told this is what some people believe. A rigorous evaluation compared to science wasnt needed. And I dont feel mentally scarred because of this. :)
I completely agree with that. We should have both point of view then be able to make our mind up. Just having one view is narrow minded.
So, to sum up:
Evolution should be taught during science class, with the explicit explanation that it is current Scientific theory and could be replaced if science makes further studies that disprove it (a good lesson in science theory versus irrefutable proof, perhaps?)
Creationism should be taught in RE as 'this is what certain people believe about the creation of the universe. Discuss this belief as compared to Evolution' and have an open discussion in the class on how belief can take over current scientific thinking and where the 2 might meet.
That way your'll encourage much healthier debate and attitudes in kids so that they can take this into life. Open minds are the best kind, but this needs to be tempered by an understanding of how Science and Religion work and a respect for both (even if you don't believe in something, you can respect that others do).
Evolution should be taught during science class, with the explicit explanation that it is current Scientific theory and could be replaced if science makes further studies that disprove it (a good lesson in science theory versus irrefutable proof, perhaps?)
Creationism should be taught in RE as 'this is what certain people believe about the creation of the universe. Discuss this belief as compared to Evolution' and have an open discussion in the class on how belief can take over current scientific thinking and where the 2 might meet.
That way your'll encourage much healthier debate and attitudes in kids so that they can take this into life. Open minds are the best kind, but this needs to be tempered by an understanding of how Science and Religion work and a respect for both (even if you don't believe in something, you can respect that others do).
Geffdof wrote:
> I think if they teach anything about the origins of life they
> should provide both points of view
Um..
they do.
Biology and Rs..
> I think if they teach anything about the origins of life they
> should provide both points of view
Um..
they do.
Biology and Rs..
Cycloon wrote
> Alfonse, why should neither be taught? Evolution in sicence and
> Creationism in RS is fine with me.
I don't think they should be taught as fact because neither have been proven apparently.
> Alfonse, why should neither be taught? Evolution in sicence and
> Creationism in RS is fine with me.
I don't think they should be taught as fact because neither have been proven apparently.
Not in any great detail or anything, only about half a lesson of work on it, but still I thought it was rediculous.
I think if they teach anything about the origins of life they should provide both points of view seen as they both require some ammount of faith as neither is currently provable.
I think if they teach anything about the origins of life they should provide both points of view seen as they both require some ammount of faith as neither is currently provable.
Page: