by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current
What about this.
What if an observer on mars saw this (below) from his telescope? He never observed it being formed yet shouldn't he still consider the possiblity that it was the result of a creation event unobserved to him? Even though he never observed its creation directly could he use the principals of science to postulate a creator for it. Or would this not be science?
hooberus,
You are confusing the aspects of raw exploratory research, the testing of theories against found facts, and the education of the young.
The "Face on Mars Photo", if it is to be used as a teaching tool in schools, might be used in a Political and Social studies class to evaluate the public's documented response to what has amounted to be an urban legend, and how it lingers after having been proven to be shadows.
It has no place in a science classroom other than as a particularly normal and uninteresting geologic feature of the planet Mars, as that is what the scientific observation has proved it to be. It is option #1: "A purely naturalistic object."
To present it as anything else in a science classroom for our youth is to mislead them about facts.
Similarly, teaching and discussion of flat-earthism belongs in a History classroom.
Similarly, teaching and discussion of a creator belongs in a Comparative Religions classroom.
Eric
It has no place in a science classroom other than as a particularly normal and uninteresting geologic feature of the planet Mars, as that is what the scientific observation has proved it to be. It is option #1: "A purely naturalistic object."To present it as anything else in a science classroom for our youth is to mislead them about facts.
Folks, my "mars face" example was simply an example of considering options and not ruling out options before one studies the evidence.
Similarly, teaching and discussion of flat-earthism belongs in a History classroom.
"flat-earthism" has been disproven by direct observation. Neither macro-evolution nor creation have been subject to direct observation, but must be infered from facts.
Similarly, teaching and discussion of a creator belongs in a Comparative Religions classroom.
The possibility of creation is not itself directly "religious".
The face on mars was a good example of how the human brain can see things that aren't there .Using the imagination can often lead people to misleading conclusions . Just because we want something to be so does not mean it is . I do disagree that evolution and creation can be logically portrayed as something that could be hand in hand . Alot of religionists seem to think it can but I can't see anything scriptual to support it . The study of evolution I don't think should be taught in grade school at all , as I said previously, or if they do they should discuss the flaws in it.
hooberus,
You cannot compare non-reproducing, non-biological objects with reproducing, biological ones. One is a closed system and the other is not. One has a lineage with variation and the other does not. Your argument is a straw man.
B.
You cannot compare non-reproducing, non-biological objects with reproducing, biological ones. One is a closed system and the other is not. One has a lineage with variation and the other does not. Your argument is a straw man.
Just because modern men arise from their parents by their parents reproduction does not necessarily mean that humans ultimately arrived by evolution. Computer virises reproduce and arrive at your computer by a form of reproduction yet they were ultimately the products of creation.
My "mars face" and "Mt Rushmore" examples are an example of how to consider the origins of an object from studying the object itself, and not to a priori exclude creation options before looking at the data.
Choose your path wisely.
hooberus,
You missed my point. Design in a mountain is different than design in biological entities. Copying errors and the dynamics of biological systems are far different from a lifeless rock. Undeniable patterns in a lifeless rock is enough circumstantial evidence for a designer. Patterns in a living organism should be expected due to the very nature of living organisms and, hence, do not require a designer.
Bradley
and you missed my point:
As I have previously sated:
Folks, my "mars face" example was simply an example of considering options and not ruling out options before one studies the evidence.
My "mars face" and "Mt Rushmore" examples are an example of how to consider the origins of an object from studying the object itself, and not to a priori exclude creation options before looking at the data.
CZAR,
You got me. It is part of the NWO knowledge base.
A demigod just can't have fun anymore teasing mortals........
Will be looking in on all of you from time to time. Don't forget to pray!
Mr. KIM
