The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The world is only 6 thousand years old ...

Studdly said:
I think he means the teachings of the bible are that with stories like noah, because all mankind was wiped out, inbreeding is a-ok with your daughters because theres no one else to bring mankind back.
Of cours explaining how god managed to drown the planet, and then make the waters recede doesn't seem to ever have an answer.
Click to expand...

Of course the Bible doesn't actually say God "drowned the planet" -- in context, the Hebrew word should be translated as the known or inhabited world.
 
CobyForrester said:
We could be teaching lies to children without knowing it. Perhaps they are genuinely teaching kids thinking it is the truth. Think of how many times we have taught lies without knowing it. No view should be omitted. What should be worrisome is any desire to omit other perspectives. Fortunately it perhaps isn't the dominant perspective depending on the location.
Click to expand...

What we should be teaching is the concepts and models that best fit with the current known evidence, understanding that concepts and models are revised as new evidence is presented. Science is never about reaching an absolute truth, it is about formulating theories based on the facts supported by the known evidence, and acknowledging current limitations. We definitely should not be teaching something based solely on a whimsical possibility that it could be correct, despite no supporting evidence. The process of investigation and learning involves testable hypotheses, data collection, model design, predications based upon that model, experimentation, replication, revision, peer review, scrutiny of every step over and over again attempting to fault the design, and, if the concept withstands that torturous process of scientific inquiry, then, and only then, is it taught to children in science classrooms.
 
CobyForrester said:
We could be teaching lies to children without knowing it. Perhaps they are genuinely teaching kids thinking it is the truth. Think of how many times we have taught lies without knowing it. No view should be omitted. What should be worrisome is any desire to omit other perspectives. Fortunately it perhaps isn't the dominant perspective depending on the location.
Click to expand...

If you're teaching a science class, you teach science. Young earth creationism is not science.

Besides that, if you want no view omitted, then are you going to teach all the different Creation myths of, just for starters, every single different North America native tribe's version?
 
FirmaFan said:
What we should be teaching is the concepts and models that best fit with the current known evidence, understanding that concepts and models are revised as new evidence is presented. Science is never about reaching an absolute truth, it is about formulating theories based on the facts supported by the known evidence, and acknowledging current limitations. We definitely should not be teaching something based solely on a whimsical possibility that it could be correct, despite no supporting evidence. The process of investigation and learning involves testable hypotheses, data collection, model design, predications based upon that model, experimentation, replication, revision, peer review, scrutiny of every step over and over again attempting to fault the design, and, if the concept withstands that torturous process of scientific inquiry, then, and only then, is it taught to children in science classrooms.
Click to expand...

You mean we shouldn't spend time on the take of how the earth was created from the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy series?

:p
 
If you're teaching science class, you might also teach that old earth creationism is not science either.
 
bankside said:
If you're teaching science class, you might also teach that old earth creationism is not science either.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the hordes of the religious think it is science. They are equivalent, and if you disagree you hate God and small woodland creatures.

Of course, being Canadian, one wouldn't expect you to understand...
 
TX-Beau said:
The problem is that the hordes of the religious think it is science. They are equivalent, and if you disagree you hate God and small woodland creatures.

Of course, being Canadian, one wouldn't expect you to understand...
Click to expand...

Oh, I wouldn't count me out just yet. I live in Canada's version of the Bible Belt, actually. Okay, it's probably what you'd consider a Vermont or a New Hampshire or something, but still...
 
Don't try to blow smoke up my ass, everyone knows fact is a Canadian plot.
 
Kulindahr said:
But at least it doesn't contradict science.
Click to expand...

Well, it does.

There's just no evidence for it. To assert that it doesn't contradict science is like saying there is another boson that has nothing to do with electromagnetism, nor the strong force, nor the weak force, nor mass, nor gravity, nor does it transmit any other kind of force, that it generates no field of any kind, nor does it interact with any of the other particles, and yet it is still a boson. Definitely. It's there! Sincere people wrote a book about it! Only people who hate small woodland creatures would dispute this!!!!!!!
 
bankside said:
Well, it does.

There's just no evidence for it. To assert that it doesn't contradict science is like saying there is another boson that has nothing to do with electromagnetism, nor the strong force, nor the weak force, nor mass, nor gravity, nor does it transmit any other kind of force, that it generates no field of any kind, nor does it interact with any of the other particles, and yet it is still a boson. Definitely. It's there! Sincere people wrote a book about it! Only people who hate small woodland creatures would dispute this!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

It can only contradict science if there's evidence against it.
 
Kulindahr said:
It can only contradict science if there's evidence against it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, there is a difference between science and reason.

Old Creationism contradicts reason, not science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top