One Cinderella hard to root for
- Thread starter bamrinnj706
- Start date
Here is what we know they teach/require, as it is directly from the syllabus of their Elements of Earth Science class. (The highlighting is mine.)
Comparative Essay: The student will choose a historical geology topic from a list provided by the instructor and produce a comparative essay in which young-earth and old-earth implications are compared and contrasted. This paper must follow current APA formatting rules. The student is expected to adequately research the chosen topic and provide bibliographic reference to at least 4 scholarly sources (2 old-earth geology references and 2 youngearth geology references) in addition to the course textbook. The paper must be 1,000– 1,500 words.
So AT MINIMUM, the school defines this bogus "young-earth" theory as the scientific equivalent of the "old-earth" theory (which the rest of the developed world defines as long-established fact). I say "at minimum" because I strongly suspect that the student is guided toward the Biblically-correct answer, but I don't know that.
Again, this is a SCIENCE class.
No bueno.
yes it would if equal time was given to the study of evolution in that class and opposing viewpoints are encouraged to be shared within the class with equal time for debating the issues.
For now, until proven wrong, I give the benefit of doubt to LU and go by both theories are being given equal respect and the school wouldn't push one over the other because of religious beliefs .
I agree. If your suspicions are correct and the student is driven towards young earth creationism..no good.
But again I don’t know that they are
I agree. It sounds like they give each theory equal respect and let the students decide.
Even if the two theories are legitimately presented with equal validity, still no bueno. Because one of the theories has no validity.
I guess because Cinderella was the ultimate underdog? Rags to riches story? James Braddock = Cinderella Man?
I guess that's where the phrase originated. Rags to riches, ok; underdog, no (because she was hot). Overused.
Liberty (which hath just losteth) is an interesting place. 11,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online.
So your against Christians and online students?:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
I think a big sign of the Liberty football players practicing against a team of dinosaurs would suffice.
Take that up with the OP - I would've never started a thread like this on the hoops board, but once it got going, I was going to put in my $0.02. If you noticed, I didn't even post ITT until it was 2 pages long.
Creationism is not a theory. A theory is a scientific fact supported by experimental evidence and verified.
Should we give equal respect and time for the voodoo "theory" of disease? I mean, you can't prove someone with a voodoo doll didn't make you sick, right?
You lack a fundamental understanding of how science works when you say "until proven wrong" regarding creationism. How exactly would one do this? If I claimed the universe was created 10 minutes ago with all of our memories implanted, you couldn't prove me wrong. Nor should you have to, because it can't be proven wrong. The burden of proof is on ME to provide evidence of my claim, not on you to "prove me wrong". Should the 10 minute old universe be given equal time and respect since it can't be proven wrong?
Evolution provides mountains of evidence. Creationism provides zero. That is why evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. We shouldn't be teaching fantasy as fact at American universities. It's a disservice to our children. Want to teach creationism in science? Provide evidence and an explanation for the claim. That's how science works.
Actually, what I'm opposed to is handing out degrees like they were soft pretzels.
I continue to be astounded and disappointed in the level of scientific illiteracy in this country and even on this board, which supposedly is populated with mostly reasonably intelligent people who graduated from Rutgers.
"You lack a fundamental understanding of how science works when you say "until proven wrong" regarding creationism."
guess you didn't understand when I said :
"For now, until proven wrong, I give the benefit of doubt to LU and go by both theories are being given equal respect and the school wouldn't push one over the other because of religious beliefs ."
That was about the course Liberty U was giving it's students about creationism and evolution . Not creationism as a fact.
I meant the benefit of doubt was for that the school was willing to put evolution on an equal bases when teaching that subject and not pushing the creationism approach because of the schools religious affiliation.
Amazing that you can't get any erudite discussions about religion, politics or science on a college basketball site. Let me check Twitter...
