1. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 13:59
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    Scientific Method: A method of discovering knowledge based in making falsifiable predictions, testing them empirically, and preferring the simplest explanation that fits the known data.

    Observation? 😕
    Ever heard of testing a hypothesis by means of observation and experimentation?
  2. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 14:00
    Originally posted by Starrman
    And you would do the same if you take that sentence and replace TOE with creationism?
    I would most definately teach that Creation requires a belief in God.
  3. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    21 Sep '05 14:01
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I would most definately teach that Creation requires a belief in God.
    And so does not have any place in a science lesson?
  4. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 14:03
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I'm not debating evolution, I'm sincerely interested in what science you consider worth teaching. That you wouldn't teach evolution is a given.
    OK. I'll have to think about this. I'll get back to you.
  5. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    21 Sep '05 14:07
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    when it comes to origins I feel that the TOE does sufficiently give all the answers.
    You converted! Halellujah!
  6. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 14:07
    Originally posted by Starrman
    And so does not have any place in a science lesson?
    I believe that "Science" in essence was founded by Bible believing Christians. I believe that the only way that anyone can truly understand Science is by looking at it from a Biblical perspective.


    See: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
  7. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    21 Sep '05 14:08
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Ever heard of testing a hypothesis by means of observation and experimentation?
    What if we take the theory and assume that it's true. Then we look at what effects that would have on things we can observe. A falsifiable prediction. Then we test if that prediction is true. If the prediction isn't then the theory needs to be adjusted. If the prediction is then we have taken a step towards verifying the theory.

    If every prediction we make is true then we may (depending on the number of predictions we have made) be able to call our theory a Theory.
  8. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 14:10
    Originally posted by telerion
    You converted! Halellujah!
    See the edited version 🙂
  9. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    21 Sep '05 14:12
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    See the edited version 🙂
    You display the kind of excellent scholarship that would take you far at a place like AIG or the Discovery Institute.
  10. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 14:141 edit
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    What if we take the theory and assume that it's true. Then we look at what effects that would have on things we can observe. A falsifiable prediction. Then we test if that prediction is true. If the prediction isn't then the theory needs to be adjusted. If the prediction is then we have taken a step towards verifying the theory.

    If every prediction we ...[text shortened]... e may (depending on the number of predictions we have made) be able to call our theory a Theory.
    That is exactly my problem with the TOE. I believe the TOE is not falsifiable. But that is a totally different topic for debate.

    edit: here's am interesting site on the topic:
    http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm
  11. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    21 Sep '05 14:16
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I believe that "Science" in essence was founded by Bible believing Christians. I believe that the only way that anyone can truly understand Science is by looking at it from a Biblical perspective.


    See: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
    I am seriously disturbed by the fact that you may end up infiltrating education under the guise of certified training and then filling eager minds with this.
  12. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 14:25
    Originally posted by Starrman
    I am seriously disturbed by the fact that you may end up infiltrating education under the guise of certified training and then filling eager minds with this.
    I will most definately not force anything on the kids. I will be as objective as possible. In the end they will decide for themselves.
  13. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    21 Sep '05 14:32
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I will most definately not force anything on the kids. I will be as objective as possible. In the end they will decide for themselves.
    That is plain rubbish and you know it. You have already revealed that you:

    1) Beleive that you cannot understand science without god: I believe that "Science" in essence was founded by Bible believing Christians. I believe that the only way that anyone can truly understand Science is by looking at it from a Biblical perspective.

    2) Would do what you intended and not what the syllabus required of you: I would most definately not tell the kids that Evolution is a fact, if I were told to do so...

    Tell me, how are these two statements condusive to an objective teaching role?
  14. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    21 Sep '05 17:00
    Originally posted by Starrman
    That is plain rubbish and you know it. You have already revealed that you:

    1) Beleive that you cannot understand science without god: I believe that "Science" in essence was founded by Bible believing Christians. I believe that the only way that anyone can truly understand Science is by looking at it from a Biblical perspective.

    2) Would do ...[text shortened]... o do so...[/i]

    Tell me, how are these two statements condusive to an objective teaching role?
    1) Beleive that you cannot understand science without god: I believe that "Science" in essence was founded by Bible believing Christians. I believe that the only way that anyone can truly understand Science is by looking at it from a Biblical perspective.

    I said that is what I believe. If it were a Christian school then that is what I would teach. If it were a government school and I taught what I believed then I would loose my job. Didn't you know that the new religion in schools is secular humanism?

    2) Would do what you intended and not what the syllabus required of you: I would most definately not tell the kids that Evolution is a fact, if I were told to do so...

    Do you think it would be objective of me to teach Evolution as a fact?
  15. Joined
    15 Jul '05
    Moves
    351
    21 Sep '05 17:08
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I believe that "Science" in essence was founded by Bible believing Christians. I believe that the only way that anyone can truly understand Science is by looking at it from a Biblical perspective.


    See: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
    Science was founded by Christians? Then what of the early Greek scientists and mathematicians? (Mathematics being the root of all science.) or the ancient Chinese scientists and astronomers? Christians may indeed be responsible for the rebirth of European science; or the study of science in Christian cultures, but I think it is a might strong to say that Christians founded science--especially, "Bible-believing" Christians, since scientific progress was being made before the book we now know as the Bible was completed.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree