FreeHovind - Typical Creationist Science Class

Home Petition Watch Download Info Forum

Home Content Submit

Home > Content > General > Discussion: Typical Creationist Science Class

Typical Creationist Science Class

35 Comments - 4273 Views

Submitted By ronnies_evil_twin on 09/12/29

FreeHovind, ronnies_evil_twin, General

Teacher "Ok Class.....sit down....Welcome to your first day of Science Class. Open your bible to Genesis Chapter One. Let's read Chapter One outloud.
Class in Unison: "In the beginning.."
Teacher: Okay..that completes science class. Any questions.?
Mary: How old is the Earth?
Teacher: 6000 years old...
Mary: How do we know?
Teacher. Says so right here in the good book. God is so smart.
Billy: Why are there mountains? My Nobel Prize winning Geologist Father says it is because of something called Plate Tectonics.
Teacher: Well....was your father there when the moutains were created?.. No??.. Well.. the answer is...god did it. Billy....go see Father Fealmi for your punishment.
Billy: AGAIN????? (Walks strangely out of room)
Johnny Sagan: My dad Carl, says that the earth revolves around the sun....Is that True?
Teacher. Has your father ever been so far away from the earh and sun that he can observe that???? No? Johnny....the bible says the earth is the center of everthing. So?????
Johnny: Go see Father Fealmi????
Teacher: Yes...but give him 20 minutes.
Suzy: Where do rainbows come from:
Teacher: God did it
Chris: Why do we get sick?
Teacher: God is punishing you....but not like Billy and Johnny are being punished.
Tiffany: Why does it rain?
Teacher: God makes the rain?
Tiffany: How does he do that?
Teacher: God can do anything..I think he just snaps his fingers but don't try to figure everything out... that is what happened to Eve.
Tina: Why is our DNA so closely related to the DNA of other primates. Isn't it true that our chromosone 2 is the fusion of 2 of thier chromosones.
Teacher: TINA!!!!!! Where did you hear that word? DNA is a myth created by the Devil or God to test your faith. NEVER use the word DNA, the scientific word is God Juice. Tina....see me after class.
(Billy comes back into class, Johnny leaves)
Teacher: Any more questions?
Billy: Why do we find single cell organisms in the oldest levels of the geologic column, followed by multicellular organisms in the next level, followed by species of fish, reptiles, etc.?
Teacher: Well, for this i have 3 answers Billy. 1) The Geologic Column is a myth created by the Devil or God to test your faith. 2) Noah's flood put them that way or 3) God did it.
Teacher: Okay class... I am handing out your final test. Please pass them back. There are 20 multiple choice questions. You have 20 minutes.
(Mary raises her hand)
Teacher: Mary, you have a question?
Mary: On the test...???? The ONLY answer to all 20 questions is "God did it"
Teacher: EXACTLY Mary... you have been paying attention.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 35 Replies

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/29 - 21:59 GMT

Good story, really I enjoyed it. Funny.

the truth is we cannot have that as a science lesson, firstly because its not really true. Secondly, here in South Africa (don't really know how it is in the rest of the world.) our schools system is so that in Science class we are taught what can be observed and respectable theories (PS: excludes evolution.)

we don't focus on creation science, because we cannot insult any student's beliefs. how the lessons are taught is up to the teacher and the government is not involved in that in any manner. also if the students feel that the lesson doesn't reflect the truth we have the right to request the teacher to reconsider the lesson.

i.e We don't focus on Creation Science or Evolution. and it works..

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 1:36 GMT

something tells me you're not a man of science...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 16:41 GMT

"our schools system is so that in Science class we are taught what can be observed and respectable theories (PS: excludes evolution.)"

....haha....

you understand that all of ToE is crucial to explainign enythign in a cell culture right?

"lso if the students feel that the lesson doesn't reflect the truth we have the right to request the teacher to reconsider the lesson.."

so if the teacher told them that eating lots of candy will give them diabetes...they can just reconsider takign lessons that take the fun out of life?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 15:45 GMT

our schools system is so that in Science class we are taught what can be observed and respectable theories (PS: excludes evolution.)

I know you're trying to suggest that evolution isn't an "observed and respectable [theory]" - but your words and phrasing convey almost the exact opposite. Taken literally, what you've written is that evolution is an observed and respectable theory - and that it's excluded from the South African science curriculum.

We don't focus on Creation Science or Evolution. and it works..

That would explain why so many eminent biologists are from South Africa (*cough-cough*).

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 3:33 GMT

Couple of comments Wihan.
1) What is taught is up to each teacher???? So there is no uniformity in the educational system???
2) The students can request that the teacher change what he/she is teaching because the student doesn't think it is the truth? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of in my life. Give students the right to determine what is taught in school. Students who don't even have a grasp of the fundamentals on a given subject matter are given some sort of power to determine what is taught?
3) From your previous post, you were not taught evolution in school. How can you make an informed decision about anything if you have never been taught about the subject? Trust me....if you are reading articles on the internet about a subject..well...I have this land that is a wonderful investment for someone just like you.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 3:41 GMT

If the students where to decide what to be taught then all my high school chemistry would be on boms since one classmate asked every god damn week if the teacher would "enlighten" us on the subject of explosives and bombs. Except for one week where he wanted to learn how to process narcotics.

as for nr 3. well if he don't want to learn he woun't learn anything. I've made posts here that no creationists could refute or even answer to. Some of my posts have been replayed with "nope, lies!" and such. And when i say "nope, lies!" i really mean just that. Nothing more nothing less. You could go slam an animal evolving from one species to another in their faces and they still would say it's fake or just a mirage or whatever.

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 22:20 GMT

firstly. If you might not have noticed its 'students' (plural), meaning that the majority of the class has to feel the same way. It doesn't just take one student.

Secondly. Just because we have the right, doesn't mean we actually use it. Really its more an option for a once in a blue moon situation.

And thurdly. here, we actually take our education seriously. Therefor we do not abuse the right.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 15:56 GMT

firstly. If you might not have noticed its 'students' (plural), meaning that the majority of the class has to feel the same way. It doesn't just take one student.

Seriously? You really let science curriculum be determined by "mob rule," based on the "feelings" of the least-informed group of people? As stupid educational policies go, that's right up there with giving high school diplomas to people who are functionally-illiterate.

I'm sure the students must love that. I can tell you for a fact that, when I was in high school, it wouldn't have been difficult to get majority of students to claim that they didn't "believe" in factoring trinomials or the quadratic equation.

「Rolf」 (wintergreen)

6 days - 8,562v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 17:40 GMT

This post is not useful to anyone. It makes fun of Christian science classes so inaccurately that it can be nothing more than an abusive fallacy.

In case you are mistaken, Christian science classes are no different than other ones except:

Most do not teach evolution and/or the Big Bang

Most give scientifical evidence of Biblical accounts such as the Flood.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 18:26 GMT

Is it the same class where they say when god gets angry he makes lightning? Or if you masturbate you will burn in hell cuz it's "scientifically proven"?

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 22:29 GMT

God created a self sustainable universe. Therefor He doesnt have to create every lightning bolt or every ocean current etc.

He doesnt play Sims with us.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 16:46 GMT

"God created a self sustainable universe. Therefor He doesnt have to create every lightning bolt or every ocean current etc.

He doesnt play Sims with us."

some fundies on this forum will disagree with you on that.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 16:45 GMT

In case you are mistaken, Christian science classes are no different than other ones except:

Most do not teach evolution and/or the Big Bang

Most give scientifical evidence of Biblical accounts such as the Flood."

if that is the case,

the satire portrays the point quite well

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 22:45 GMT

Wihan,
"god created a self sustaining universe" Where is the evidence that god created this self sustaining universe? I AM TALKING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. (Design theory has been debunked...don't claim evidence of design) Also, where in the bible does is say he created a self sustaining universe. I see where the bible says he created the universe..but i see no claim that he made it self sustaining. In fact...God was allegedly the one who made it flood, caused earthquakes...etc. That isn't self sustaining.
You also claimed that god does not play Sims with us. Creationists are the ones that say that God does indeed play Sims with us. They think he is involved in every factor of thier life. He gives them strenght, he heals them, watches over them, has something to do with every factor of their life. THAT IS PLAYING SIMS.

「Rolf」 (wintergreen)

6 days - 8,562v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 23:00 GMT

"In fact...God was allegedly the one who made it flood, caused earthquakes...etc. That isn't self sustaining...... They think he is involved in every factor of thier life. He gives them strenght, he heals them, watches over them, has something to do with every factor of their life."

God made the universe self sustaining:

"And on the seventh day God ended all His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." -Genesis 2:2.

But just because it is self sustaining does not mean that He can not intervene.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 16:43 GMT

But just because it is self sustaining does not mean that He can not intervene.

That's not the issue. The relevant question is not whether or not God *can* intervene - it's why would God ever NEED to intervene? That doesn't sound like an omnipotent, omniprescient supreme being - that sounds more like a software developer who needs to release updates and bug-fixes.

As Ken Miller puts it, that view of God turns the fossil record into a catalogue of God's failures - he couldn't get it right the first time, so he had to make multiple attempts.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 16:36 GMT

Also, where in the bible does is say he created a self sustaining universe. I see where the bible says he created the universe..but i see no claim that he made it self sustaining. In fact...God was allegedly the one who made it flood, caused earthquakes...etc. That isn't self sustaining.

From what I remember, the standard argument for that position is that the Bible should be read allegorically, rather than literally. Personally, I see that as backpedalling by more moderate Christians - when presented with a completely implausible bit of the Bible, they have the ready-made excuse of "Oh well that part was just symbolic/an allegory."

Of course, it does also lead to the question: if (for example) the flood or the burning bush or the garden of eden is an allegory, then what's to say that the account of Jesus' life & resurrection isn't an allegory too?

"In the beginning, there was darkness. Which is convenient because it means that I don't have to describe it to you."

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 23:15 GMT

Notice....i asked for scientific evidence and i get a bible quote. BRILLIANT.
Additionally, where does it say that it is self sustaining? Oh.. you INTERPRET genesis to say that it is self sustaining.

「Rolf」 (wintergreen)

6 days - 8,562v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 23:29 GMT

"Also, where in the bible does is say he created a self sustaining universe."

you asked for it!!!

"Additionally, where does it say that it is self sustaining?"

If God RESTED on the seventh day and the universe was not self sustaining, then the universe would be no more because God was busy RESTING and not sustaining it.

However, Hebrews 1:3 could mean that God sustains the universe:

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… Hebrews 1.3

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 18:47 GMT

If God RESTED on the seventh day and the universe was not self sustaining, then the universe would be no more because God was busy RESTING and not sustaining it.

What leads you to assume that that's the only possibility? What, God's not capable of putting the universe on auto-pilot while he takes a nap? There's no one he could delegate responsibility to for a day?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 23:47 GMT

Again, that is your interpretaion of the Bible. I could just as easily say that he ONLY rested one day because although the universe could make it without his help..... it couldn't sustain itself for more than one day. THAT is why the Bible didn't just say after the SIXTH day he rested. It limited his rest to JUST that Seventh day. He had to get back to work on day eight. This is just as reasonable an interpretation as you have. Again, you are picking and choosing what is literal and what is a metaphor. If it doesn't fit into your ideas you interpret.
Both our interpretations are rediculous...but i was not the one who claimed him resting on ONE day meant that the universe was self sustaining.

ronnie(l.a.)

1 day - 2,617v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 16:55 GMT

God was resting, not sleeping. He's always aware.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 17:09 GMT

"God was resting, not sleeping. He's always aware."

see anthony.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 17:11 GMT

but if he's an omnipotent super natural being with no actualy brain why would he need rest for?

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 23:19 GMT

What do you mean by 'see anthony' ?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/03 - 20:29 GMT

"God created a self sustainable universe. Therefor He doesnt have to create every lightning bolt or every ocean current etc.

He doesnt play Sims with us."

some fundies on this forum will disagree with you on that.¨

¨he is always aware¨

that´s what you needed to see.

in the minds of some people on this forum, and many more in the world, god does indeed play sims with us.

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2010/01/05 - 23:32 GMT

Okay, didn't really know how big this was going to be blown up.

I'm sorry for who ever I might have insulted by saying "God doesn't play Sims with us" it was not my intent.

but, I do want to make a point on the 'self sustainable universe' part.

my meaning was that, He doesn't have to create everything over and over again day after day.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/06 - 15:51 GMT

"I'm sorry for who ever I might have insulted by saying "God doesn't play Sims with us" it was not my intent."

so you acknowledge there actually are fundementalists out here who hold that position...

gr8.

" He doesn't have to create everything over and over again day after day."

true, but then you might aswell be a deist.

there is no theism required in god creatign a selfsustaining universe.

since al he'd need to do is create the constants.

DrWorm

9 hours - 765v

Posted 2010/01/03 - 3:03 GMT

I was wondering if any of you creationist types need to be loved....in the butt.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/06 - 0:02 GMT

Anthony,
Again, i ask for SCIENTIFIC evidence that god created a self sustaining universe?

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2010/01/06 - 19:57 GMT

What would that help?

You'd dismiss it....

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/07 - 14:08 GMT

What would that help?

You'd dismiss it....¨

well ya....if it´s fallacious.

like that entire seminar you copy pasted.

but if it´s genuine. then there is nothing left for us but to acknowledge it.

at least that´s what a scientific mindset would cause.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 21:12 GMT

What would that help?

...what? You're joking, right?

You'd dismiss it....

An easy prophecy to make when you know you're incapable meeting his challenge.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/06 - 20:26 GMT

Anthony,

Nobody here has presented scientific evidence that god created a self sustaining universe. Again, please present this evidence. If this is evidence that YOU have found, i suggest you submit it for peer review and win yourself a nobel prize.
I did not dismiss any evidence you presented. I don't see that ANY evidence was ever presented.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 20:33 GMT

"What leads you to assume that that's the only possibility? What, God's not capable of putting the universe on auto-pilot while he takes a nap? There's no one he could delegate responsibility to for a day?"

Yes, perhaps he delegated said responsibilty to the unicorns he mentions throughout the bible.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 35 Replies

PlexPedia - The unified online compendium of knowledge

- My Settings

This website is powered by Plexpedia
Usage of this site constitutes agreement to the » Legal Stuff