Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Indiana Creationism Bill Moving Forward | Login/Join |
| Old Pro |
Leave us alone fundies. Hoosiers are already stupid enough with more help from you. Indiana Creationism Teaching Bill Moves Forward In State Senate "Indiana legislators are moving forward on a bill that would allow creationism to be taught alongside other theories in the state's public school system. The Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 Wednesday to present the bill to the full Senate, the Associated Press reports. Creationism, a theory with origins in the Bible's Book of Genesis, suggests that divine power created man, animal, and all earthly matters. The idea is an opposing view to the science-based theory of evolution. If the bill passes, Indiana school districts will have the option to include creationism as part of science courses, Indianapolis' WXIN reports. The bill was sponsored by Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse, head of the Indiana State Senate's Education Committee. Kruse previously proposed similar legislation in 2000 when he served as a state representative. That bill never made it past a committee vote, according to the Journal Gazette. Indiana isn't the only state to examine the possibility of adding creationism to school curriculum. Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Missouri have all looked at similar bills designed to encourage a critical look at evolution theory, the Wall Street Journal observes. About 60 percent of high school biology teachers teach evolution in the classroom without taking a direct stance on the issue LiveScience reports. The article states: Based on respondents' write-in answers, the researchers surmised that many of these cautious teachers toed the line, weakly teaching evolution without explicitly endorsing or denying creationism in order to avoid controversy and questions from both students and parents. Indiana Sen. Scott Schneider said he voted in favor of SB 89 because students should be taught various theories on the origin of life, according to the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times." - Huffington Post, January 26th 2012 Please join me in contacting Senator Kruse (bill sponsor) to demand that he remove the bill from consideration and resign his post as chairman of the education committee: EMAIL: SENATOR.KRUSE@IGA.IN.GOV | ||
|
| Old Pro |
OMG, Indiana is taking cues from Georgia. We've only fought that battle a couple dozen times. It's an election year, time to rally the fundies with dinosaurs on the Ark with Noah. | |||
|
| Old Pro |
My email message to Dennis Kruse: "Senator Kruse, Please do not further handicap our state's children by allowing myth and religious dogma to be taught as science in our public school classrooms. It is important that our children be taught the fact of biological evolution as the scientific basis for understanding our origins, and the origins of the flora and fauna that surround us. SB 89, if passed, will do a horrible disservice to our children, our schools, and our communities by requiring instructors to teach a fiction under the guise of science. I am asking that you not be complicit in this assault on our state's education system by formally withdrawing SB 89 from consideration by the legislature effective immediately. I also respectfully request that you resign your position as education committee chairman effective immediately. In this day and age we simply cannot afford to have a leader with a narrow religious agenda in charge of the future of the state's educational system." | |||
|
Regular |
Compare the genesis account of creation with the evolutionary account of the creation of the earth. Not much difference to argue about. On the other hand those that believe a creation "day" is 24 hours don't understand that science is the study of God's creation. Just for the record it was the FOURTH "day" of creation when the sun was created pretty much debunking using the biblical account of creation as a solar day. Everything else pretty much describes a what a "big bang" might sound like to someone writing it down 4000 years ago. The Bible was not given as to be a detailed account of creation although after 4000 years science is beginning to catch up and theorize the order of creation as described in the bible. The bible is a Chronicle of modern man's relationship with the creator. Man would have had no use for the detailed information that science has gradually discovered about the order of creation. If I'm not mistaken, the bible is more of a chronicle of the relationship of God with a nation that he chose as His own. There are other people mentioned in Genesis that were not descendants of Adam: Genesis: stage 1-day 1 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning— the first day. day and night have nothing to do with the sun or solar system at this point. Day and night are merely the names for Light and Dark as prior to this there was no light. Pretty much what "big bang scientists" so brilliantly claim. The sun and moon and solar system did not exist at this point according to the bible and according to science. 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. At this point the light has formed, solids and liquids are being formed and water (the scientific pre-requesite to life is formed!) How long did it take evolutionists to figure this one out? 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 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. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. Three "days" into creation there is still no sun or moon or solar system but there is light, and water and life beginning , pretty much in full agreement with "science". Of course those of us that believe in "intelligent design" have known this for 4000 years, science eventually got the general idea about 3500 years later. Oh yeah, surely anyone reading the bible wouldn't confuse a day of creation with a solar "day" that still doesn't exist even according to the bible? 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 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. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. The "fourth day" and only now does God see it fit to create the solar system and establish a measure of "Time". Still "day" and "night" only serve to describe light and darkness. Perhaps many choose "night" over "day" and darkness instead of light. Yes evolutionists, life in simple forms (plants) began before the solar system was established because plants were created to use water and light and co2 (photosynthesis). This would be the same stage that many believe it was possible for life to have existed on mars or other places, because God is light, God is life, God created the light, water and simple life forms as the earth was still forming, yes according to the bible. It is at this stage that galaxies, stars, solar systems and the universe as we know it today are taking shape. Only 3000 years after this was written did the world's smartest men "discover" the existence of the other worlds and what stars and galaxies were. 20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 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.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. Oh, my! Now there are all sorts of animal and aquatic 'lifeforms" living in the WATERS! Sorry evolutionists, the Bible said it first. This came along in one of your "ages" that happens to coincide with a "God day".This same period went from amphibians to birds oh my! Let me think don't evolutionists claim that birds came from life that came from the sea, oh my! Ok, pretend you are early modern man and God is explaining how your universe came to be, is there a need to describe every detail that the man wouldn't understand anyway? Wasn't it a lot more fun allowing man to "discover" it and take some of the credit from God? LOL 24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 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. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Wow, the last creature to be created was "man" how long did it take evolutionists to figure that one out? Why wasn't man created while there were dinosaurs? Not a hard answer, The dinosaurs would eat the men! Good job God! Oh yeah , if you were God and you created all these things and you were omnipotent and knew that they things you created would continue to change, would you be silly enough to have made your creation so that it could not adapt to the rest of your creation? Of course not silly, you would create them so that they could change and adapt as their ever changing environment would change. Kudos again God! Good Job. If the wisdom of man had designed creation, he would have made one version of everything and the instant the environment changed survival would cease. Oh yeah, now it's time for God to rest and let creation do what He created it to do....pretend that He doesn't exist!!! Dear Mr Kruse, Please don't limit our children to merely the things that man has discovered about creation, let them know the true story and let them tap into the wisdom of God and learn more than man has learned before. Yours Truly, Truth | |||
|
| Old Pro |
Great letter, Fred! That this Senator is head of Education!!  That is truly disturbing. | |||
|
| Old Pro |
Okay: Evolution - All current life forms evolved from previous life forms in a process that began about 3 billion years ago and continues today. Biblical Creationism - God created the cosmos, the earth and all life forms, as they exist today, over a 6 day period that took place between 3,000 and 12,000 years ago, depending on how you count your "begats". Seems like a lot of room for argument to me, SoT.
No. Science has uncovered no evidence that plants existed before there was a sun, SoT. Science has produced clear evidence that the sun existed before the earth. I suggest that you stand down, and stick to subjects that you know something about. | |||
|
| Regular |
There are many things that science has "misdiscovered" in this case it is the actual point when life on earth started. The whole point of my post was that you along with other misled individuals of all persuasions tend to equate a "Genesis Day" with a Solar day which didn't even exist either in science or Genesis. There is one final item that science will discover in physics and many have already "theorized" it's existence and that is the discovery of the most finite particle of the universe that represent the common building block and most elemental form of energy in the universe. Many scientists believe it exists and describe it as a "particle of light" while others call it the "God particle" . Of course as with every great scientific discovery, the narrow minded will scoff just as they did when Galileo suggested that the earth orbited the sun rather than the sun circled the earth. Made quite a difference when we were no longer the center of the universe. No it hasn't been proven yet but every law of physics and understanding of the universe point to it's existence. To those that can't think beyond the chants of the repeaters that never search for truth but only repeat other men's ideas, don't bother trying to imagine the probability that the universe is created from the only thing that has existed for eternity - God. God is light, light is the most finite form of energy, all things that exist are energy, all energy is comprised of light. Energy can neither be created or destroyed but can only change forms. The universe is made of energy in many forms. All forms of energy were created from a single source. Science is close to discovering God. I'm not sure God will allow it. Will He allow them to see how he did it and let them claim they "discovered" it when He already told them? maybe. Science had decided that everything is comprised of some form/state of energy and that the energy is contained in atoms and sub-atomic particles, science agrees that some very powerful energy source acts on these sub-atomic particles. Quantum theory wasn't born until the 20th century, and is still taking shape. Quantum theory will be complete when the most finite form of energy can be defined. Most know that this will be light but technology cannot confirm it at this time. Quantum theory began the real search for God with science and replaced or upgraded nearly every other form of scientific thought. One last discovery remains to complete the idea of quantum dynamics. That will explain the universe. That will show you God in every created thing. | |||
|
| Old Pro |
When life began on earth has nothing to do with the tenets of biological evolution. Nothing.
That's particle physics, not biological evolution. Lock some physicist and theologians in a room to sort that one out.
No. No it's not.
Not sure what that means.
No. Science is in no way teetering on the edge of evoking divine intervention, or magic. Not on any front, in any discipline.
A mind is a terrible thing to develop without help, SoT. You are spewing a bunch "stuff" built on your vague notion that God and science will somehow merge at the quantum level. That path was traveled by the "hippie scientists" of the mid/late '70's who thought that zen budhism has something to say about quantum physics (look up "the 8-fold path"). They were wrong. There is mysticism and there is science - never the twain shall meet. | |||
|
| Old Pro |
Dear Senator Kruse: If SOT is your science adviser, fire him immediately. Then resign in disgrace. Sincerely, GBG
| |||
|
Old Pro |
Fitty cent bullets and takin' care o' business? | |||
|
| Regular |
You have mistakenly identified me as one who practices religion. Religion is man's invention where man's wisdom is substitured for God and the study of man's ideas about god become a religion. My personal thoughts are that if I were the devil, I would invent religion to keep people from finding God. You are completely mistaken about the decline of interest in Special Relativity theory although I wouldn't be surprised (these are really tedious to answer multiple unsubstantiated claims in one post) You are matter, you are energy, when you die you will be converted to another form of energy. just a fact. Didn't know about the hippie scientists (sounds like an oxymoron) but expect most of their ideas were hallucinogenic.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Truth Lives, | |||
|
| Old Pro |
Dear Senator Kruse: Why havent' you fired him yet? Sincerely, GBG | |||
|
| Old Pro |
Particle physics is simply not germane to the discussion of evolution. I believe that I was actually contrasting creation and evolution, not comparing them.
Okay, lay it out for me. How is all energy composed of light? From what I know of physics and thermodynamics (which is a lot) energy is the ability of a system to perform work. Never, ever in all my years in science class room have I ever heard any claim, or assertion that all energy is fundamentally light. But hey, I'm open to learning.
Okay. You tell me then. In what disciplines are scientists on the verge of saying "We've gone as far as we can go here. We can only assign everything beyond this point to God"?
I never claimed any decline in interest of special relativity. I claimed that it, and all your gobbelty-gook about Einstein and mass and energy, is irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution. You seem to believe that special relativity points God, or at least least appoaches the divide between man's knowledge and God. Unfortunely, the study of special relivity amounts to what happens when you look as stuff while you're moving. Not quite so mystic sounding when you put it that way, huh? Energy and mass equivalence cannot be derived from SR alone. Einstein had to mix in a bunch of other stuff to come up with E=MC**2.
So what? Frankly, I don't know what you are talking about and neither do you. Your posts in this thread lack a coherent theme. First, decide on a point, then craft a linear argument to make it. Cocktail hour is fast approaching. I'm planning to be drunk by 7:00. | |||
|
| Regular |
Higgs boson: scientists close in on 'God particle'Discovery would rank among most important scientific advances in 100 years and confirm how elementary particles get mass Scientists are expected to announce they may have caught their first glimpse of the Higgs boson, a curious subatomic particle long thought to underpin the microscopic workings of nature. Hundreds of physicists will crowd into a seminar room at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, on Tuesday, to hear the latest in the hunt for the particle, while thousands more are expected to watch online. The Higgs boson, or so-called God particle, has become the most coveted prize in particle physics since it was postulated in the mid-1960s. Its discovery would rank among the most important scientific advances of the past 100 years and confirm how elementary particles get mass. Scientists have been hunting the Higgs for more than 30 years with machines so large they are miles across and consume the power of a reasonable-sized town. While the results are unlikely to be conclusive – the hints of the particle could fade when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) collects more data next year – they are understood to be the strongest evidence so far that the Higgs particle is there to be found. Finding the Higgs boson has been a major goal for the £10bn LHC after a less powerful machine at Cern, the LEP, failed to find the missing particle before it was shut down in 2000. The hunt was joined by scientists at the Tevatron collider near Chicago, who will present their results early next year. The Higgs boson is the signature particle of a theory published by six physicists within a few months of each other in 1964. Peter Higgs at Edinburgh University was the first to point out the theory called for the existence of the unusual, missing particle. According to the theory, an invisible energy field fills the vacuum of space throughout the universe. When some particles move through the field they feel drag and gain weight as a result. Others, like particles of light, or photons, feel no drag at all and remain massless. Without the field – or something to do its job – all fundamental particles would weigh nothing and hurtle around at the speed of light. That would spell disaster for the formation of familiar atoms in the early universe and rule out life as we know it. While the field is thought to give mass to fundamental particles, including quarks and electrons (the particles that make up atoms) it accounts for only 1% or 2% of the weight of an atom itself, or any everyday object. That is because most mass comes from the energy that glues quarks together inside atoms. To hunt for the Higgs boson, physicists at the LHC sift through showers of subatomic debris that spew out when protons collide in the machine at close to the speed of light. Most of the energy released in these microscopic fireballs is converted into well-known particles that are identified by the collider's giant detectors. Occasionally, the collisions might create a Higgs boson, but it disintegrates immediately into more familiar particles. To find it, scientists must look for telltale "excesses" of particles that signify Higgs boson decays. They appear as bumps, or peaks, in the data. If the rumoured glimpse of the Higgs boson turns into a formal sighting next year, it may be one of several Higgs particles outlined in a radical, but much studied theory of nature called supersymmetry. The theory, that every known type of particle has an undiscovered twin, is popular among many physicists because it explains how some forces of nature might have behaved as one in the early universe. Unifying the forces of nature was a feat that eluded Albert Einstein. http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie...s-boson-god-particle I didn't make up the name "God Particle" someone else did. All physicists know that they cannot explain the universe with what we know now. Einstein based his hypothesis' on considerations of how God would create the universe (I saw a doc where I heard him say it-not an argument). Higgs boson is what they have been searching for. It's behavior is closely related to that of known particles of light (photon) and are what is believed to be the missing knowlege as to what holds the universe together. | |||
|
| Old Pro |
That's all very interesting, SoT, but what in bejeezus does any of it have to do with creationism legislation in Indiana? Here is Einstein's view on God not long before he died: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954) | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |