Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.
IOW, you're happy with the status quo.
Science can't measure non-natural explainations.
Since fossils don't come with time/date stamps, and there is a considerable amount of dispute over the aging of fossils (some fossils have been recently found with soft-tissue) how does that support your position?
Nearsighted.
That's not what would be threatened, as you would have people who don't believe in what you want taught. It's moronic to think that your message is what will be presented in the classroom.
" claim that every single creation story must be given an equal hearing in the classroom is bogus..."
Your belief that that will not be the case is unrealistic, and out of touch. Public schools may not elevate one religion above others, your thoughts on the subject notwithstanding.
"...just like the claim of some that the idea of intelligent design automatically stifles scientific curiosity"
Your next complaint will be when the theory of intelligent design is debunked by the application of the scientific method...at least you'll get to play the victim again.
"n effort to defend what is merely a shaping principle as opposed to hard science you are making a mountain out of a mole hill."
In your effort to o-pen up a full debate on this issue, you will allow the public school system the opportunity to attack Biblical creation.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Scientists date fossils using a variety of methods. The accuracy is getting to be better and better all the time.
Creationists dispute any such dating for non-scientific reasons. They often try to wrap their objections in scientific terms, but their objections are frequently nonsense.
it all depends on whether the sauce is indeed the product of tomatos, or instead the product of tomatoes.
it is the epsilon of difference, you see
ehwhaaa?
This is the General Secondary School Examination - it is taken at the end of fifth form year. The equivalent in my native Hong Kong is the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE) as Hong Kong shares the same education system as England and Wales (Scotland uses a different education system more similar to states in Australia and New Zealand) - courtesy of Hong Kong's colonial history.
British education system at secondary level is 3-2-2 and radically different from America high school (or even the American-influenced Chinese education system, which is used in both China and Taiwan). I don't think there is any equivalence at all. It consists of three years of junior secondary school (Forms 1 to 3), followed by two years of senior secondary school education (Forms 4 and 5). GCSE is sat at the end of the 5th Form year. Once you get past a certain standard at 5th Form you will then be admitted into a two-year Sixth Form courses, or University Matriculation (it was the official name 40 years ago in Britain, since then it is not in use in Britain but still popularly used in Hong Kong). The first year is Form 6, second year Form 7 - it was at the end of Form 7 that you sit the A Level exam (this rule is the same for both Britain and Hong Kong).
There is no exact definition of saying which is the final secondary school year under this system. Officially it is Form 5 as Forms 6 and 7 are matriculation years for university studies, but in other countries standards the Sixth Form years do count as "hish school". Some count it as Form 7 but in Britain at least half of students leave after the fifth form year (in Hong Kong it is even worse: only 1/3 of stduents can go to Form 6 after passing HKCEE - when my brother was at schol 20 years ago only 20% of Form 5 students could advance to Form 6).
I have here information about Hong Kong's education system at this level, from the HKSAR government. It highlights characteristics of this type of education system:
the sauces of Bivalvodules are lukewarm to the FSM
However you made the claim, what he said seems imminently correct except for the improbable escape clause noted. Thus, claiming that RWP's post is untrue would itself appear untrue.
try that last line as:
...and they heard it in a nursery rhyme.
I see. thanks
Which Creation stories would you omit and why?
I usually don't see typos. LOL! I make up what I think it should be. ;) But thanks for clarifying that!!!
Check this out. This is pretty amazing!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1584856/posts?page=2186#2186
The intra-field scientific disputes I've seen are all well within the range of evolutionary timelines and none would support a young earth timeline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.