Are creationists polluting the minds of our youth?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 31-3-2008 @ 12:14 PM by dave420
reply to post by TheRedneck


And I think the universe was started by the massive Space Rhino doing a fart. By your logic that now has to be taught in schools.

Creationism and ID are not scientific theories. They're theological theories, and nothing more. They have no place in science. If a creationist could come up with even the most basic test of their hypothesis, then they'd be on to something. But, as it is, creationism is lacking any scientific basis what-so-ever.

Teaching kids that creationism is real is as cruel as teaching them that alligators live in the toilet and will bite their butts when they poop.


reply posted on 31-3-2008 @ 08:12 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

Every child deserves a decent education. Some HS parents probably can provide it, many will fall short. Forget the obfuscation. Getting kids a half-decent education has been one of the best things that has happened in the last 100 years or so. The parents can do what is required. If they really want to homeschool, they can. If they can't afford getting the required education, maybe you should push for free education, bring in a few laws that ensure this, raise some taxes

Of course, you'd be happy with a pair of illiterates homeschooling, why would anyone even think that's an issue...same with the scientifically illiterate, those who think 2+2=5, those who think the holocaust never happened, etc etc. Kids deserve better.


If you read the article I linked to earlier, you will see that state testing is required for any home-schooled child, just as it is for those schooled ion a public or private school. I am assuming you somehow got the idea that a home-school arrangement was equivalent to playing hookey. That is far from the truth.

So if the same testing is required for all schooling, then why is a parent forced to undergo the same licensing requirements that a 'professional' teacher undergoes? Is being a professional a requirement for caring for your children now? That is the real question.

Shouldn't we let kids develop their own beliefs? Or do parents determine beliefs for them?


Ah, I had a feeling this argument would come up. It usually does.

A child is not a little version of an adult. If you had children (which I can pretty much rest assured you do not, from your statement alone) you would be well aware of this. A child cannot decide what to eat for dinner today, else it will eventually suffer severe malnutrition from only eating candy. A child cannot decide whether it wants to go to school today, else it will never graduate.

There is a reason children are considered 'minors' under the law. They do not have the wisdom or experience to make reasonable decisions. Therefore they should not be charged the same as an adult (at least in most cases, I know there have been numerous exceptions recently). So the answer to your question is that it is absolutely correct for parents to teach their children beliefs. If you disagree, I would ask, who, then should teach the children their values? You?

I will admit, your cartoon is hilarious though.

TheRedneck


reply posted on 31-3-2008 @ 08:24 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

there is no legit scientific basis for disputing evolution, that's why i threw the religious tag in. everyone that's disagreeing with it either doesn't understand it due to ignorance or willful ignorance, or they do understand it and choose not to accept that which contradicts their religious beliefs


well, ummm, I guess I jest gotta tells ya whut I does unnerstan' about dis here theery...

The theory of evolution, first proposed by Charles Darwin after a visit to the Galapagos Islands. Darwin witnesses a group of animals which differed from species ion other parts of the world, apparently in response to their environment. In his work "The Origin of Species", Darwin proposed that species can evolve over time in response to new environmental pressures. He also indicated that if this theory were taken to extreme, it could explain similarities between different species throughout the world, both evolving from a common ancestor under differing environmental pressures.

The theory was accepted by quite a few scientists around the world in the years that followed, despite great attempts to discredit it by other scientists. After much debate and time, evolution was placed into schoolbooks and taught as the leading theory of the beginning of life on the planet.

There are two types of evolutionary theory: micro-evolution is what darwin addressed directly in his work; macro-evolution is the extension of his work to encompass all life beginning from a single organism. Micro-evolution has much circumstantial evidence to support it, and little if any evidence that denies it. Macro-evolution has only circumstantial evidence to support it, and has been revised many times since it was first proposed. Most of the argument against evolution is directed toward macro-evolution. Ironically, Darwin denied the validity of macro-evolution on his deathbed.

Now, can you recant the theory of creation in this detail?

TheRedneck



reply posted on 31-3-2008 @ 08:30 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by dave420

Creationism and ID are not scientific theories. They're theological theories, and nothing more. They have no place in science. If a creationist could come up with even the most basic test of their hypothesis, then they'd be on to something. But, as it is, creationism is lacking any scientific basis what-so-ever.


No scientific basis? Metallic hydrogen, superconduction, oxygen assimilation in relation to atmospheric conditions... wow, what Bible are you reading?

As far as repeatable experimentation results, care to clue me in on the library of experiments done on macro-evolution? (see my last post if the term isn't familiar to you). Last time I looked, there were none.

TheRedneck


reply posted on 31-3-2008 @ 08:55 PM by dave420
reply to post by TheRedneck


Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process, just after different amounts of time. We can't perform experiments to determine "macroevolution", because we don't have millions of years to perform it. We can, however, look at the masses upon masses of evidence in support of "micro" evolution (not that scientists have the need to differentiate in such arbitrary terms) and the processes involved, and see it's a coherent theory.

So, even if there was only circumstatial evidence for macroevolution (which is untrue), that's still a damn-sight more evidence than creationism! At least it's a testable, falsifiable theory. Creationism is neither of those, and as such is not scientific. The fact you can't differentiate between them speaks volumes about you.


reply posted on 31-3-2008 @ 11:11 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by dave420

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process, just after different amounts of time. We can't perform experiments to determine "macroevolution", because we don't have millions of years to perform it. We can, however, look at the masses upon masses of evidence in support of "micro" evolution (not that scientists have the need to differentiate in such arbitrary terms) and the processes involved, and see it's a coherent theory.


According to Darwin, the founder of the theory, there is a difference. A difference of degree, not just of time. If you have studied any of the recent work in the theory of evolution, you will know that scientists now tend to favor the concept that macro happens in 'spurts', taking little time to accomplish new species. Micro-evolution appears to happen at a fairly predictable pace, based on the degree of environmental change. And yes, there is evidence for species changing certain characteristics due to this, be it color, increased/decreased sensitivity to stimuli, etc.

I have no problem with micro-evolution. We have even seen it in our own species, as humans are today larger physically than a few generations ago, supposedly due to dietary improvements and medicinal advancements. These can be seen as a change in our environment. In contrast, no one has ever observed macro-evolution, which is not even Darwin's original concept. Yet I could fill several pages with examples of reasoning why organisms could not evolve such things as eyes, vocal cords, limbs, etc. based on 'survival of the fittest'.

So, even if there was only circumstatial evidence for macroevolution (which is untrue), that's still a damn-sight more evidence than creationism! At least it's a testable, falsifiable theory. Creationism is neither of those, and as such is not scientific. The fact you can't differentiate between them speaks volumes about you.


According to your own post, there has never been a witnessed event of macro-evolution, much less repeatable experimentation. Therefore, there can be no evidence which is not circumstantial.

I am still waiting for someone to give me a good explanation of the creationalism theory. I believe I have proved my knowledge of the subject matter; please do the same. Until one is familiar with a theory, it is childish to attempt to brush it away with a sweeping statement such as yours.

And please, don't degrade yourself by attempting to degrade me. I use the moniker 'TheRedneck'. You will be hard pressed to beat that.

TheRedneck


[edit on 31-3-2008 by TheRedneck]


reply posted on 1-4-2008 @ 09:41 AM by TheRedneck
reply to post by riley

It seems no one here is able to even define what it is they are claiming as a tainted theory. I fail to understand how someone can paint an unknown theory as anything without even being familiar with what that theory is.

I could have claimed Al Gore's movie was a bunch of hogwash without seeing it, but that would have been patently unfair - to both him and myself. So I watched it and developed my opinion based on the evidence.

I could have simply dismissed evolution as the ramblings of a group of anti-Christian fanatics. Instead I studied it, bought the book, and judged it based on the actual evidence.

Before you or anyone else start to make such wild claims, I strongly suggest you at least look up the thing you are railing about. I took this forum as a place to debate, and that requires knowledge. I see no knowledge here, only opinions without support.

TheRedneck



reply posted on 1-4-2008 @ 09:23 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Is being a professional a requirement for caring for your children now? That is the real question.


No, just for homeschooling them in Cali.

If you had children (which I can pretty much rest assured you do not, from your statement alone) you would be well aware of this.


If you say so.

So the answer to your question is that it is absolutely correct for parents to teach their children beliefs. If you disagree, I would ask, who, then should teach the children their values? You?


I'm not sure using the food analogy is really effective here. Nor is making everyday decisions for a child.

I'm not even talking about refusing parents the rights to teach whatever they like to children, to instill their own values etc. I actually mentioned all this before. I'm not even saying that homeschooling should be outlawed, just performed by those who have the skills to do it to a decent level.

I'm more suggesting that maybe we should expose them to a range of beliefs, positions, etc. Including the scientifically-supported one, without worrying about whether such a position is in conflict with a parent's belief.

It shows the paranoia of some parents, and the fact they readily perceive the inherent weakness of their own beliefs, that they have to hide their children from opposing postions. To keep them at home, indoctrinating them like a mini-bot.

I would like to give children the freedom to think for themselves. You are quite happy for children to grow up with some sort of parent-sourced authoritarian mind-control. Produce nice little mini-bots.

Opening minds vs. closing minds.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by melatonin]


reply posted on 1-4-2008 @ 10:01 PM by weemadmental
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin


Oh, yes, there's a standard. A standard indoctrination, and a set of hoops to jump through designed to make absolutely sure that no one who disagrees with the 'science' du jour will be able to tell their children about it.



would you get a grip, god created this and that, prove it, evolution is all around you, i evolve my plants by cross breeding, does that make me a god of the plants?.

Evolution is what makes the world work, there is no standard indoctrination for evolutionary there is though for the teachings of jesus and god though, isnt there!

Get as Grip
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags