Scholastic Books - 5'156 items found
View more items
Is the earth really all that old?
In Precise method and scholastic claims today, the earth is approximately 4.6 billion to 6 billion years old today, and the hundred continues to grow the more we understand this theory...and it makes a lot of sence with the absence of a belief in a creator....but does a maker really belong outside the realm of science because its been made a politcal oppression by the religious community? Inception theories belong in the realm of bio-chemistry. We can prove at some point there was an origin...but where, when, and why was that origin?...so we check in up with a "primitive" conclusion that it may be the work of a titled God with very human characteristics. Consider civilized record, only being in the realm of 6-10,000 years old. Each myth represents a young age for the time of creation by a high framer...can they really explain all human events. There is slight evidence of dinosaur and human fossils existing together in exceptional places, which you won't hear in main stream science which should be individually researched. Dinosaurs could be explained as the forms of dragons in myths that we've found all over the beget, clearly large creatures which could be explained in creatures like teradactals and massive size creatures. Human being biology, and the extensive time frame of the various homonids over perhaps the millions of years it has taken to split off from our THEORIZED one primate ancestor. Consider the stories of deformed giants and the Nefilim races which were corrupted through lineages of fallen angels and mankind. There is a tremendous flood story in most myths that wiped out all of human kind, which could have corrupted the very unbalanced geological narrate that Carbon and radioactive dating cannot account for. Think of mass extinctions that have occured in a short shackle of time. The world population 5,000 yrs ago was only....now...considered to be about 90 million people. Weigh about how soon it could have came from people who were living insanely long lives before the great deluge viva voce of by every mesopotamian civilization and myths of a great tower that divided the languages...it shouldnt all be taken as uncontested truth, but they did know things at the time that we don't today. In the book of Job it refers to the world as a disk suspended on nothing, so some knew the magic was round...one thing evolution has never proven but teaches as doctrine is the transformation of one species to another, which is called the non-existing "missing unite." In the Age of Enlightenment sources from books like the bible and Chinese philosophies like the I Ching were dismissed as fairy tales and wonderful-stition until these places were excavated and became a fertile history for civilization.Some forms of metaphysics have had more elements of fats now discovered...scarcely as primitive science, than supertistion...in fact sciences like chemistry had its roots in arts like alchemy and other esoteric sciences...and some otherworly mysteries such as unannounced healings of cancers and people of aids being cured through prayer and coming back from the dead is definitely in the empire of the supernatural than the paranormal. I know I'm ranting...but I have a lot to say regarding these issues. Call it pseude-science or ignorant hypothesis, but DIRECT CREATION is now as valid as the arrogance of main stream science has become with more of an politcal agenda to regard it a mass delusion that doesn't even belong in the realm of scientific thought...unfortunately its become a religion within itself, more than the work of all truth.
perhaps you will learn something, if you look up "TLDNR".
somewhat sure its tirllions not billions.
Yes, the soil is approximately 4.6 billion years old. That number has not changed in quite some time
Sorry, but all start stories are fairy tales, all evidence points to an ancient earth, approximately 4.6 billion years old
Sorry, but all start stories are fairy tales, all evidence points to an ancient earth, approximately 4.6 billion years old
Is there a theme in all this "stuff"?
If you are interested in science, learn more about it. You are absolutely correct that science does not separate everything but do you believe that religion is the way to understand the workings of the universe? You claim that creationism belongs in the realm of bio-chemistry. Do you identify anything about bio-chemistry? Do you know anything about DNA and how the functioning of DNA supports the process of evolution?
You decry the politicallization of science (and that is certainly a intimidation to science that has existed as long as there has been science) but what about the politicallization of religion? If you are really interested in history, give some anticipation to the human misery that has been perpetrated in the name of religion throughout history.
If you want to consider what might be true, try to prove that the undivided universe was not created 5 minutes ago just for you, you were created with all your "memories" of your parents and your haunt town and your personal photographs and what you ate for breakfast this morning.
If you are interested in science, learn more about it. You are absolutely correct that science does not separate everything but do you believe that religion is the way to understand the workings of the universe? You claim that creationism belongs in the realm of bio-chemistry. Do you identify anything about bio-chemistry? Do you know anything about DNA and how the functioning of DNA supports the process of evolution?
You decry the politicallization of science (and that is certainly a intimidation to science that has existed as long as there has been science) but what about the politicallization of religion? If you are really interested in history, give some anticipation to the human misery that has been perpetrated in the name of religion throughout history.
If you want to consider what might be true, try to prove that the undivided universe was not created 5 minutes ago just for you, you were created with all your "memories" of your parents and your haunt town and your personal photographs and what you ate for breakfast this morning.
Of progression there's has to be some sort of creator out there. It's just nothing the dumb human race can understand. what we don't understand we make up for by creating religions, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.. But the accuracy is none of those come even close to the truth. We jut need to believe in something for comfort.
"I identify I'm ranting...but I have a lot to say regarding these issues."
Uh, you could've fooled me. Next time you KNOW you are ranting, here's an idea you could try.
Just now stop.
Get up from your computer screen. Take the dog for a walk, and then come back and read what you wrote before you hit the send button.
---------------
Responsible scientists don't declare to know The Truth. Instead, they offer plausible explanations. You're right. Nobody has ever proven that evolution in actuality happened. But they have proven, beyond any shadow of doubt, that if the Earth is billions of years old, then it COULD have happened. If you do not understand this, then your unconsciousness is showing.
Nobody has ever proven that the Earth is billions of years old, but if it's not, then an awful lot of scientific theories are invalid. In as a matter of actual fact, it might knock down the whole scientific house of cards. It would leave us questioning the very scientific theories whose application pounce upon possible the invention of microelectronics and lasers and cell phones and GPS, nuclear technology, fertilizers, dyes, and nice-looking much every other invention of the past two hundred years.
Science and religion come into conflict when religion tries to get across the forces of nature. (Science doesn't do anything BUT try to explain the forces of nature.) The reasonableness that drives creationists to say that the Earth is only 6000 years old is the same logic that once drove the faithful to say that the Earth was the center of the creation, and that it was surrounded by crystal spheres in which the sun and the moon and all of the planets and stars were embedded. It took a few hundred years for organized Christianity to fully common knowledge to terms with the Scientific community on that issue as I recall.
The Catholic church officially apologized for what they did to Gallileo sometime in the 1970s, I conceive of it was.
Uh, you could've fooled me. Next time you KNOW you are ranting, here's an idea you could try.
Just now stop.
Get up from your computer screen. Take the dog for a walk, and then come back and read what you wrote before you hit the send button.
---------------
Responsible scientists don't declare to know The Truth. Instead, they offer plausible explanations. You're right. Nobody has ever proven that evolution in actuality happened. But they have proven, beyond any shadow of doubt, that if the Earth is billions of years old, then it COULD have happened. If you do not understand this, then your unconsciousness is showing.
Nobody has ever proven that the Earth is billions of years old, but if it's not, then an awful lot of scientific theories are invalid. In as a matter of actual fact, it might knock down the whole scientific house of cards. It would leave us questioning the very scientific theories whose application pounce upon possible the invention of microelectronics and lasers and cell phones and GPS, nuclear technology, fertilizers, dyes, and nice-looking much every other invention of the past two hundred years.
Science and religion come into conflict when religion tries to get across the forces of nature. (Science doesn't do anything BUT try to explain the forces of nature.) The reasonableness that drives creationists to say that the Earth is only 6000 years old is the same logic that once drove the faithful to say that the Earth was the center of the creation, and that it was surrounded by crystal spheres in which the sun and the moon and all of the planets and stars were embedded. It took a few hundred years for organized Christianity to fully common knowledge to terms with the Scientific community on that issue as I recall.
The Catholic church officially apologized for what they did to Gallileo sometime in the 1970s, I conceive of it was.
You keep saying "theory" and "theorized" as if they were window-pane, meaningless terms that can be thrown around like nothing at all. In science, a theory is as good as fact, until new information comes along, if it ever does.
The theory of evolving is exactly that, a theory, which means that many, MANY scientists, some of the brightest minds around, have spent many, MANY years collecting and comparing evidence, and it all seems to fit this theory.
Until new information comes along, if it ever does, then we will stand by our data in declaring that 'yes, humans evolved from a clich ancestor, just like every other living creature', and 'yes, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.'
The theory of evolving is exactly that, a theory, which means that many, MANY scientists, some of the brightest minds around, have spent many, MANY years collecting and comparing evidence, and it all seems to fit this theory.
Until new information comes along, if it ever does, then we will stand by our data in declaring that 'yes, humans evolved from a clich ancestor, just like every other living creature', and 'yes, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.'
Yes, there is much impregnable that the earth is over 4,500,000,000 years old, but there is no proof of creationism, none at all. It is just nonsense that distorts scientific theories and has some bad art and much pseudo-science but no really good science or logic in it.
It is.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire book cover?
On the US version, I need some help in recognizing what's on the back cover. I recognize Beauxbatons carriage & horse, the flaming Goblet, and the dragon at the bottom (at least, I effrontery that that's what it is...), but I'm stuck on what the rest is-- especially the beaked winged creature with antennas-- because I know that's not the dragon's control. And what are the light green swirly things on the maze wall? Are the red eyes supposed to be Voldemort's?
http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/community/art/HP4_Traverse.jpg
In the book, it says the blast-ended skrewts don't seem to have mouths so I think the beaked creature is something else. And it never mentions beaks or antennae for them, so that's why I was stumped on what entity that could be.
There isn't a beaked winged entity with antennas. That's the dragon's wing, and it's covering up the rest of the Blast-Ended Skrewt--that's the ugly beak and antennas. =D
The swirly leafy things are just the leaves. Remember, the maze is made up of hedges.
And yeah, the red eyes are probably there to illustrate Voldemort, before he had a body. =D
Dear Scholastic Books
A letter from Mrs. Neery's 4th Grade Class about the commercialization of Scholastic Book Fairs. A film by MemeFILMS (www.memefilms.org Tired ...
RT @ Free Scholastic Books with Kellogg's Purchase at Walmart {$15 Walmart Gift Card and.. 
List of Books for Jack Canfield | Scholastic Teacher: Jack Canfield В· Read more. Show only books available for .... 
