Creationist school's plea is denied by state board

[Pandora]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re•plen•ish
1. to make full or complete again, as by supplying what is lacking, used up, etc.: to replenish one's stock of food.
2. to supply (a fire, stove, etc.) with fresh fuel.
3. to fill again or anew.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
replenish




© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
re•plen•ish Audio Help (rĭ-plěn'ĭsh) Pronunciation Key
v. re•plen•ished, re•plen•ish•ing, re•plen•ish•es

1. To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to: replenish the larder.
2.To inspire or nourish: The music will replenish my weary soul.

v. intr.
To become full again.


[Middle English replenisshen, from Old French replenir, repleniss- : re-, re- + plenir, to fill (from plein, full, from Latin plēnus; see pelə-1 in Indo-European roots).]

re•plen'ish•er n., re•plen'ish•ment n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
replenish
1340, from O.Fr. repleniss-, extended prp. stem of replenir "to fill up," from re-, intensive prefix, + -plenir, from L. plenus "full" (see plenary).


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
replenish

verb
fill something that had previously been emptied; "refill my glass, please"


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
replenish [rəˈpleniʃ] verb
to fill up again; to fill up (one's supply of something) again
Example: We must replenish our stock of coal.
Replenish
Plen"ish\, v. t. [See Replenish.]
1. To replenish. [Obs.] --T. Reeve.
2. To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm. [Scot.]
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Replenish
Re*plen"ish\ (r?-pl?n"?sh), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Replenished (-?sht); p. pr. & vb. n. Replenishing.] [OE. replenissen, OF. replenir; L. pref. re- re- + plenus full. See Full, -ish, and cf. Replete.]
1. To fill again after having been diminished or emptied; to stock anew; hence, to fill completely; to cause to abound. Multiply and replenish the earth. --Gen. i. 28.
The waters thus With fish replenished, and the air with fowl. --Milton.
2. To finish; to complete; to perfect. [Obs.]
We smothered The most replenished sweet work of nature. --Shak.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Replenish
Re*plen"ish\, v. i. To recover former fullness. [Obs.]
The humors will not replenish so soon. --Bacon.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Replenish
Re*plete"\ (r?-pl?t"), a. [L. repletus, p. p. of replere to fill again, fill up; pref. re- re- + plere to fill, akin to plenus full: cf. F. replet corpulent. See Plenty, Replenish.] Filled again; completely filled; full; charged; abounding. "His words replete with guile." --Milton.
When he of wine was replet at his feast. --Chaucer.
In heads replete with thoughts of other men. --Cowper.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


in all of the above examples there is one weird line that really doensnt fit. every other online dictionary says its to RE fill Re stock exc. but ok what ever it is tech. one of the examples.

 

[Pandora]

I am curious, do you consider Inteligent Design the same as Creationism?

I do not see them the same. But probably some would. I saw the movie expelled no intelligence allowed. I though it was pretty good. I am glad they exposed to the public what I already knew.

 

[The Scotsman]

I am curious, do you consider Inteligent Design the same as Creationism?

I thought inteligent design was a term created by the courts as a sort of "fudge" to allow creationism to be taught legally? Thus intelligent design is the same as creasionism just dressed up differently - I think...

Anyway in answer to your question no.

 

[vyo476]

I was always told that intelligent design is meant as a bridge between creationism and evolution - that while neither theory is mutually exclusive the believers of both sides in practice couldn't reconcile their views with present terminology, so "intelligent design," the idea that God created everything and then natural law, including evolution, took over, was meant as a reconcilliation. If that's the truth of what intelligent design is, it'd be a highly Deist ideal.

 

[top gun]

Of course allegory is not fact. Not fact, however, does not mean that there is no fundamental truth to it.



I'm sorry but you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the nature of science, or any form of human knowledge, for that matter.

All fields of human inquiry start from a set of axioms. In mathematics --commutative, associative, identity, etc., in physics -- conservation of mass and energy, invariance of the speed of light, causation, etc., in logic -- axiomatic set theory, etc.

Axioms have no formal proof BUT are always true. In fact, NO field of inquiry is possible without one or more axiom at its foundation.

So you see, the natural sciences, mathematics and logic would crumble just as easily as theology and philosophy WHEN YOU NEGATE THEIR UNDERLYING AXIOMS.

With all due respect that's a lot of big words explaining nothing.

It goes without saying that an idea is the beginning of any search. The difference is that with science there is some provable, testable, forward progress in thousands of areas. Whether it be carbon dating or fossilized records... one could go on for days in hard factual evidence leading in a certain direction.

The only fact on the other side is one chooses to believe in it.

I'm a strong believer that anyone should be allowed to spiritually believe in anything they choose. But there is an obvious line that if crossed by a school system does a disservice to its students. Schools in the US aren't exactly setting any world records in math & science as it is. Introducing religion "creationism" as hard science only dumbs us down more. We don't need that. The State Board made the correct call.

 

[PLC1]

Evolution is based on science.

Creationism is based on philosophy. So is intelligent design.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism, nor for intelligent design other than creation itself. Neither is there any evidence against the existence of a creator. How could there be? Are we to expect science to prove or disprove the existence of God?

There is no fundamental conflict between the idea that life was created and the theory of evolution. Evolution could well be the means by which life was created. That evolution is the way that life came about in the myriads of interdependent forms we see on Earth today has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that god started the whole thing, and most likely did a little tinkering here and there along the way. I can't prove that, of course, but then you can't disprove it either.

 

[Pandora]

Evolution is based on science.

Creationism is based on philosophy. So is intelligent design.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism, nor for intelligent design other than creation itself. Neither is there any evidence against the existence of a creator. How could there be? Are we to expect science to prove or disprove the existence of God?

If no one is ever allowed to peer review IE then we will never know. I don’t think there is empirical evidence for evolution; it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

There is a difference in creationism and IE IMO. IE doesn’t say there is a god; some believers in IE think our race was genetically changed by intelligent life from other places.

 

[PLC1]

If no one is ever allowed to peer review IE then we will never know. I don’t think there is empirical evidence for evolution; it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

There is a difference in creationism and IE IMO. IE doesn’t say there is a god; some believers in IE think our race was genetically changed by intelligent life from other places.

IE?

It is not possible to peer review a philosophy.

There is far more evidence for evolution that I could ever begin to post here on this thread. Evolution is the basis for modern biology, for one thing.

Philosophers have two choices: Tailor philosophy to fit scientific knowledge, or ignore the fact and logic and espouse ideas that could not possibly be true.

 

[Coyote]

Intelligent design starts with the supposition (and acceptance of) some manner of supreme all powerful being.

A being that:

can't be defined
can't be qualified
can't be quantified
can neither be proven nor disproven


Exactly how can this EVER be SCIENCE?

Teach it in Philosophy or Religion.

 

[The Scotsman]

Intelligent design = Divine Intervention

So who or what are or were the Intelligent Designer(s)?? Could they be God or indeed Gods!! If you read the books of Eric Von Daniken then you could be looking at...........ALIENS!! Which as we all know is total garbage because Daniken was a sandwich short of a picnic.



Personally I believe it was the Goa'uld travelling through the stargate and that Apophis manipulated our genes so that we would believe in him as our true God! JAFA CREE!!


....sorry....back in a second the doorbell just rung.....some odd looking gentlemen in white coats are coming up my dri...................


But then again who's to say that its not Aliens' - prove me wrong!! Yer man Dembski even considered within his writtings "God or Gods" and did not discount Alien intervention!.........total fruitbat!!

 

[top gun]

Intelligent design = Divine Intervention

So who or what are or were the Intelligent Designer(s)?? Could they be God or indeed Gods!! If you read the books of Eric Von Daniken then you could be looking at...........ALIENS!! Which as we all know is total garbage because Daniken was a sandwich short of a picnic.



Personally I believe it was the Goa'uld travelling through the stargate and that Apophis manipulated our genes so that we would believe in him as our true God! JAFA CREE!!


....sorry....back in a second the doorbell just rung.....some odd looking gentlemen in white coats are coming up my dri...................


But then again who's to say that its not Aliens' - prove me wrong!! Yer man Dembski even considered within his writtings "God or Gods" and did not discount Alien intervention!.........total fruitbat!!

You are crackin' me up my friend!

But you made a good point (you do know that right... LoL!) While science can't prove everything it does prove many... many... many... things.

In school we should teach things with at least some research value. It's fine to go to the church of your choice for spiritual inspiration and guidance.

Just like it's fine to go to a Star Trek convention for your alien search. (had to get that in there)

Hey, maybe God created evolution... who knows... but there's a place for different things to be taught and church is were the time should be spent searching for spiritual nourishment... not science class.

 

[Pandora]

IE?

It is not possible to peer review a philosophy.

There is far more evidence for evolution that I could ever begin to post here on this thread. Evolution is the basis for modern biology, for one thing.

Philosophers have two choices: Tailor philosophy to fit scientific knowledge, or ignore the fact and logic and espouse ideas that could not possibly be true.

Sorry about the IE, I was typing fast so I could go help my daughter. I meant ID.

Far more evidence than you could begin to post on here.... ok sounds like you know a lot about evolution so I was wondering if you could explain a couple of things to me.


1st if everything came from one first single cell, where did that cell come from ? or as I am often told we all came from pond scum, so where did that pond scum come from? and what are the mathmatical chances that a male and a female of all the creatures ever having lived and living today evolved enough the same to mate and create a race of what ever they are be.. people, horses exc.

2d. if everything evolved and is still evolving, where are the skeletons of the T rex in its evolutional process. we find hundreds of T Rex skeletions and the funny thing is, they all look like T Rex. none are in the process of becoming something else, or from having been something else. that seems to go for every other skeleton out there. i want to see some skeletons in some part of the process of evolution.

according to fish experts the sturgeon fish has not evolved in 25 million years. but in that same time look how everything else changed completly.

I am sorry but as of yet I have not got the faith to become a believer in this stuff.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It does my heart good to see so many reasonable people dismissing creationism for the nonsense that it is. Predictably there is one person using the same tired rhetoric, large words, poor--but creative--definitions, and a great deal of hot air to argue against science.

The only way that Creationism should be taught is in Comparative Religion and only then along with all the other stories of Creation that people believe. It is telling that the Creationists only want "their" version of Creationism taught--what's wrong with the Hopi version? The Dogon people actually have far more proof of their creation story than the Christians do.

 

[Pandora]

It does my heart good to see so many reasonable people dismissing creationism for the nonsense that it is. Predictably there is one person using the same tired rhetoric, large words, poor--but creative--definitions, and a great deal of hot air to argue against science.

The only way that Creationism should be taught is in Comparative Religion and only then along with all the other stories of Creation that people believe. It is telling that the Creationists only want "their" version of Creationism taught--what's wrong with the Hopi version? The Dogon people actually have far more proof of their creation story than the Christians do.

Oh I would never EVER EVER want some athiest with an agenda teaching my child ID in schools. Its bad enough to let them teach their "theory" of evolution. I am very happy to keep it out of schools. There is already enough to battle and fix with the warped things they currently teach.


PS I am glad your heart is doing good

 

[numinus]

With all due respect that's a lot of big words explaining nothing.

It goes without saying that an idea is the beginning of any search. The difference is that with science there is some provable, testable, forward progress in thousands of areas. Whether it be carbon dating or fossilized records... one could go on for days in hard factual evidence leading in a certain direction.

The only fact on the other side is one chooses to believe in it.

I'm a strong believer that anyone should be allowed to spiritually believe in anything they choose. But there is an obvious line that if crossed by a school system does a disservice to its students. Schools in the US aren't exactly setting any world records in math & science as it is. Introducing religion "creationism" as hard science only dumbs us down more. We don't need that. The State Board made the correct call.

Truth be told, physical cosmology speculates that the universe came from NOTHING -- couched in the fancy scientific term SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY.

So, science and theology speculates the VERY SAME THING.