The contract will expire that is enough.

quote:

Originally posted by ThankGod4Sig:. . . Fire him. Let the school board deal with it, or find some highly leftist whacko's and explain to them what he is doing. It will take care of itself on the local 6pm news.

So if the fired teacher sues, and wins, will you help cover the schools

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The earth is billions of years old. I’m sorry but only a fool thinks it’s 6000. That is the fullest extreme of ignorance.

Oh really?

We have documented and verified civilizations that are FAR older than 6000 years. The math saying the earth is 6000 years old is absurdly wrong. And that is just human development.

“Verified” how exactly?

Leaving science aside for the moment, if there is only one correct answer, then all religions should resolve to the same answer. If they don’t, then some are wrong and false religions. Has there been comparative studies across religions? How were differences dispositioned?

Science can be wrong. So can beliefs. But they should resolve to the same answer, all things correctly known.

quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The earth is billions of years old. I’m sorry but only a fool thinks it’s 6000. That is the fullest extreme of ignorance.

Oh really?

We have documented and verified civilizations that are FAR older than 6000 years. The math saying the earth is 6000 years old is absurdly wrong. And that is just human development.

“Verified” how exactly?

Evidence. Carbon dating. Science. Good lord, this isn’t a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of whether or not one can believe in science without being labeled a heretic. The world is older than 6000 years. A LOT older.

I thought we covered all this in the Scopes Monkey Trial back in the 1920's. Looks like we are still chasing the same dog around the porch, 100 years later. Get the school system's legal people on this, like a long time ago. You aren't likely to win this fight alone.

In the macro, arguing over the age of anything is absurd considering that time itself is a fluid measurement only constant to an individual point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by ThankGod4Sig:. . . Fire him. Let the school board deal with it, or find some highly leftist whacko's and explain to them what he is doing. It will take care of itself on the local 6pm news.

So if the fired teacher sues, and wins, will you help cover the schools

If he isn't doing the job kick him to the door.

quote:

Originally posted by ThankGod4Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by ThankGod4Sig:. . . Fire him. Let the school board deal with it, or find some highly leftist whacko's and explain to them what he is doing. It will take care of itself on the local 6pm news.

So if the fired teacher sues, and wins, will you help cover the schools

If he isn't doing the job kick him to the door.

I guess that's a "yes".

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The earth is billions of years old. I’m sorry but only a fool thinks it’s 6000. That is the fullest extreme of ignorance.

Oh really?

We have documented and verified civilizations that are FAR older than 6000 years. The math saying the earth is 6000 years old is absurdly wrong. And that is just human development.

“Verified” how exactly?

Evidence. Carbon dating. Science. Good lord, this isn’t a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of whether or not one can believe in science without being labeled a heretic. The world is older than 6000 years. A LOT older.

Word.

Science is the how, religion is why. Being a believer in science doesn't mean you can't also be religious.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The earth is billions of years old. I’m sorry but only a fool thinks it’s 6000. That is the fullest extreme of ignorance.

Oh really?

We have documented and verified civilizations that are FAR older than 6000 years. The math saying the earth is 6000 years old is absurdly wrong. And that is just human development.

“Verified” how exactly?

Evidence. Carbon dating. Science. Good lord, this isn’t a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of whether or not one can believe in science without being labeled a heretic. The world is older than 6000 years. A LOT older.

So you can verify without a doubt that carbon 14 dating is accurate? You can prove that the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes remains constant throughout time? You would have to be able to do that in order to prove that carbon 14 dating is reliable....and you can’t.

I’ll refrain from referring to you as ignorant, as you have done to me and others on this board and on this thread, but you might want to check yourself before you call others ignorant when it would seem the only argument you can make is well, because of science and evidence...and a dating method that you cannot prove to be accurate.

I cannot prove scientifically that earth is roughly 6,000 years old. I don’t believe anyone can, however, I do believe in God and that there is more and more coming out all the time that scientifically supports the Biblical standpoint that God created the earth, everything in it, and the earth could very well be young.

Demonstrating that the Earth is more than 6000 years old—far, far older—can be as simple as counting the annual layers of sediments in bodies of water or ice: 1, 2, 3, … etc., etc., etc.

E.g.: “The oldest ice cores, from East Antarctica, provide an 800,000-year-old record of Earth’s climate.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...uction-to-ice-cores/

quote:

I cannot prove scientifically that earth is roughly 6,000 years old.

This is the most pertinent quote in your statement. Neither can the teacher in question. So, he shouldn’t be spreading his belief as if it were facts. Period.

There are too many aspects of dating something to be discarded by ones faith alone. That is ignorant whether you accept it or not. Fossils do not form in less than 6000 years. Planets do not coalesce in less than 6000 years. Previous civilizations are documented by later civilizations. Beyond the previous 6000 years. I’m sorry if that bothers you, but there is no common sense that supports the earth is only that young.

quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The earth is billions of years old. I’m sorry but only a fool thinks it’s 6000. That is the fullest extreme of ignorance.

Oh really?

We have documented and verified civilizations that are FAR older than 6000 years. The math saying the earth is 6000 years old is absurdly wrong. And that is just human development.

“Verified” how exactly?

Evidence. Carbon dating. Science. Good lord, this isn’t a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of whether or not one can believe in science without being labeled a heretic. The world is older than 6000 years. A LOT older.

So you can verify without a doubt that carbon 14 dating is accurate? You can prove that the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes remains constant throughout time? You would have to be able to do that in order to prove that carbon 14 dating is reliable....and you can’t.

I’ll refrain from referring to you as ignorant, as you have done to me and others on this board and on this thread, but you might want to check yourself before you call others ignorant when it would seem the only argument you can make is well, because of science and evidence...and a dating method that you cannot prove to be accurate.

I cannot prove scientifically that earth is roughly 6,000 years old. I don’t believe anyone can, however, I do believe in God and that there is more and more coming out all the time that scientifically supports the Biblical standpoint that God created the earth, everything in it, and the earth could very well be young.

So then, science is not accurate, but anyone who thinks it is, is ignorant, because: Faith.

Gotta love the nested quotes. Keep it up, gentlemen. There aren't enough of them.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Demonstrating that the Earth is more than 6000 years old—far, far older—can be as simple as counting the annual layers of sediments in bodies of water or ice: 1, 2, 3, … etc., etc., etc.

E.g.: “The oldest ice cores, from East Antarctica, provide an 800,000-year-old record of Earth’s climate.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...uction-to-ice-cores/

I understand your point but how can one scientifically prove that those layers were laid annually? Can anyone rule out that other global events may have led to multiple layer deposits in a given time frame? Without going back in time there is no way to observe this happening, so it is a theory. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to make a point as I was with Carbon 14 dating. We have no way of knowing for certain that the rate of decay is constant. To know that you would have to go back in time and take repeated observable measurements. So I'm saying that the ways in which science has tried to measure time cannot be observed, hence it cannot be settled science that proves the age of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:

So then, science is not accurate, but anyone who thinks it is, is ignorant, because: Faith.

I never called anyone ignorant. I simply want to point out that if you want to prove something in science, you need to be able to observe it happening. Using a theory that you cannot prove by observation or repeated experiments as the very foundation of what you claim to be accurate is just that, a theory, not hard science.

As someone else has mention in this thread earlier, how much has so-called known science changed in the last 50 years?

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

I cannot prove scientifically that earth is roughly 6,000 years old.

This is the most pertinent quote in your statement. Neither can the teacher in question. So, he shouldn’t be spreading his belief as if it were facts. Period.

There are too many aspects of dating something to be discarded by ones faith alone. That is ignorant whether you accept it or not. Fossils do not form in less than 6000 years. Planets do not coalesce in less than 6000 years. Previous civilizations are documented by later civilizations. Beyond the previous 6000 years. I’m sorry if that bothers you, but there is no common sense that supports the earth is only that young.

Why are you saying that I am discarding that dating method based on my faith alone? I'm saying that the science doesn't support that dating method. You can prove that the rate of decay in those isotopes is constant? Are you intentionally dodging this?

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Scoutmaster, I know I went off topic, but that’s, kinda, my point.

Kids that age could be taught basic chemistry and physics. Everyone involved should have the math to do harmonic motion, and molality, etc.

It could be shown to them, and they could do the math, and it would be something real, instead of having a teacher, who lacks the education to understand the material, proselytize a position of “scientism”.

I’m not trying to dispute plate tectonics, a
I’m disputing the ability of the average middle school teacher and a bunch of 13 years olds to comprehend it in a meaningful fashion.

I disagree, and I disagree in both directions.

With very few exceptions, any competent teacher teaching anyone anything will start at the big-picture conceptual level and progressively introduce more and more detail and complexity until the student(s) knowledge reaches whatever criteria determines "enough" in that specific context.

At the "no math" end:

My four year old daughter understands that the surface of the Earth is big plates of rock floating on molten rock. This is useful information for her, because it helps her understand things about the world that she is curious about. Why are there mountains? Because the edges of the plates smoosh together and crumple up. Why are there volcanos? Because there's a hole in the plate, and lava from underneath squirts out. Why are there earthquakes? Because the bumpy edges of the plates rub against each other.

That's useful information, and none of it requires any math. With a little more detail (but still no math), it's probably plenty for her entire life unless she decides to become a geologist or geophysicist. If she does do that, the basic conceptual framework she's learned will help her place and assimilate the huge amount of further detail she will learn.

At the "math" end:

With middle school math - or even the math taught in most high schools - "the math" for chemistry and physics is just a bunch of disconnected equations that have to be memorized by rote (and that the vast majority of students will immediately forget, and would never have used for anything even if they remembered them).

It is impossible to develop anything but a very shallow understanding of chemistry and physics without vector calculus and differential equations.

That doesn't mean that teaching chemistry and physics should wait until after vector calculus and differential equations. Most people never learn vector calculus or differential equations, and a deep understanding of even basic chemistry or physics is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people.

However, the conceptual frameworks learned in K-12 science classes (in an ideal world, with decent teachers, decent curricula, and decent students) are useful for a lifetime, and the K-12 science classes with math give students a less abstract way to practice the math they are learning as they are learning it.

“ There are two schools of thought:
"Creation . . . and

"Evolution . . .
"You, as students, should understand what the supporters of each theory have to say."

Point of order. Which theory of creation are you promoting? There’s are numerous competing ones.

There’s young earth where creation 23 October 4004 BCE (Archbishop Usher)
Old earth where things are several thousand years old.
Punctuated earth where creation occur thousands of years apart. That’s much the same as “gap earth.
“Day earth” where the semantic “Day of the dinosaurs” covers the days of creation.
“Theistic”: “ God created the materials of our universe and then guided and superintended the process by which all life has evolved from the very simplest one-celled form on up to the sophisticated forms which we know today. Evolution was Gods method of bringing about the present development though originally the materials were created by God“
Then there is literal which “ The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Last are the hundreds of creation narratives found in the world’s cultures. There’s no reason they can’t be accurate.