It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are creationists polluting the minds of our youth?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I can't believe how homeschooling is put down by tax-paid institutionals!

Does anyone have the statistics on the entrance exam scores of public and private versus homeschool, because, I've heard great things about homeschooled kids. Yet they are criticized as being homeskooled! (Retarded.)

Many of those early university achievers were 'homeschooled'!
BTW, I have never, nor do I plan in the near future to homeschool.
Although, given my children's learning capacity, it might be an option.
The only drawback is sufficient socialization.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by Clearskies]




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
I can't believe how homeschooling is put down by tax-paid institutionals!

Does anyone have the statistics on the entrance exam scores of public and private versus Home School, because, I've heard great things about Home School kids. Yet they are criticized as being homeskooled! (Retarded.)

Many of those early university achievers were 'homeschooled'!
BTW, I have never, nor do I plan in the near future to homeschool.
Although, given my children's learning capacity, it might be an option.
The only drawback is sufficient socialization.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by Clearskies]


Abraham Lincoln was a Home School student and was a lawyer. I believe the best reason to take kids out of Public Schools is they have a much better chance to get messed up on drugs, messed up on Junk Science like Evolution etc. If I have to pay taxes for Public Schools and their going to teach them frogs turn into prince's life sprang from nothingness.


But Mommy a kid a School says I can go to heaven's universe.

MOM: That's a fundie honey, and they're insane with memeplex 22-3 the recent Brain disorder discovered by our Fuehrer Sam Harris,

Johnny Atheist: So what happens when we die Mommy?

MOM: After ya die you are nothing but rotting meat and maggots so you may as well shoot yourself now because the only point to being alive was to let you know what you'll never miss after your're dead. You'll never have known you were ever alive anyway and since you can't miss what you never knew because after you're dead you will never know you were alive. It won't even matter that anyone was ever alive in the first place, that it doesn't matter and that it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.
You see son death has no memory, your life really means Johnson.

Here let Mommy show you,

Johnny Atheist: MOMMY!! you're deleting my entire hard drive !!

MOM: Yep but don't be mad because it really never existed in the first place understand?

Johnny Atheist: NO?

MOM: Well, that's the nice thing about Atheism honey,, see that doesn't matter anymore either.

Johnny Atheist: Awe gee Mommy now I got to reinstall all that software and recreate all that neat stuff I was making.

MOM: No,, no no no you can't create anything, that's not how all that data got there and besides, you are dead. All that software is like the 1's and 0's a code like DNA so we know your software was not created. This is my lesson for you, how intelligent life came to be, how it works and why. You have to let it sit there over time it will all come back you will see.

Johnny Atheist: (shaking head like a cartoon) What you talking about!

MOM: Evolution Johnny,, evolution.

- Con









[edit on 2-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Thats absolutely hilarious....I love the Johnny Atheist title


Just remember though, that evolution and death does not apply to inanimate things like hard drives.

Still thought it was a good post though



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Thats absolutely hilarious....I love the Johnny Atheist title


Just remember though, that evolution and death does not apply to inanimate things like hard drives.

Still thought it was a good post though


Hi there Oz,, glad you liked that hehe.

Re-read it after the edit. The analogy to tie in memory (like our brain) and the software created that was inside it. The software inside was to create other things. It gets wiped out forever.

Unless of Course you asked Jesus Christ to make you a backup copy.


Then it becomes re-installed or,,

Born Again.


- Con



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


They are Different and there is no proof other than the faux facts, hoax's, doctored photos, mis-leading artist renderings, manufactured phony evidence and a plethora of other scams and con artistry.

If they don't have millions of years to perform tests, how about finding some evidence? DNA won't allow it anyway. No one denies micro evolution but that's no different than working out with weights and getting bigger muscles. Every species stays in the species.

Natural Selection is BUNK, Junk Science and neither one of you know any more about it than we do. The only difference is you insist on being a denialist and that is the same reason they still have the same fake baloney about it in text books.

Learning about it is the biggest waste of time, there is. If people want to believe such fairy tales and believe frogs turn into princes and 0+0=1 or life came from nothing then make it happen, but they failed every time.



So, even if there was only circumstatial evidence for macroevolution (which is untrue), that's still a damn-sight more evidence than creationism!




"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.


0 evidence is Zero and when compared to any other Science's Zero evidence you still got JOHNSON and they have had Johnson since 1857.

Evolution is a BUST total waste of money, it's pure Garbage.


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.


An atheist implying someone is not too bright because they said the truth about evolution,, isn't that unusual.

All evolutionists can resort to now is calling creationists names

They will call them names and make outrageously ignorant statements about the so called mountains of evidence but like Lennox did to Dawkins shutting him out in debate, evolution is as extinct as java man, piltdown man, or any other so called caveman they say were our ancestors.



"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.




"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."—*Tom Bothell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper’s, February 1985, p. 61.




"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin (1866), quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 139.




"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19 [a leading astronomer].




The mountains of hoax are like rusty relics in a junkyard they refuse to clean up like urban blight in a School Biology text book.

It's worthless.

- Con



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Your response was idiotic and illogical. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm just saying your response was childish at best.

[Edit: uncommon courtesy]

[edit on 2/4/08 by dave420]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Originally posted by conspiriology;

All evolutionists can resort to now is calling creationists names

They will call them names and make outrageously ignorant statements about the so called mountains of evidence but like Lennox did to Dawkins shutting him out in debate, evolution is as extinct as java man, piltdown man, or any other so called caveman they say were our ancestors.


Exactly!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


So if it's extinct, that means it once existed, right?

Or maybe you're just being purposefully ignorant about the mountains of evidence because it doesn't suit the beliefs you have been indoctrinated with.

Creationism is still a baseless, unfounded, untestable, unfalsifiable theory. Evolution is none of those. One makes for a real, scientific theory, and the other makes for a fairy tale.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Piltdown man. False.
Haekel's graph. False.
Horse evolution chart. False.
Archaeopteryx
(Feathered dinosaur). False.


But it later emerged that the tail had been glued on to increase the fossil's commercial value before being sold to a dealer.


The Chinese fossil is one in a series of fakes that have fooled paleontologists in the past.

Piltdown man was exposed 40 years after its discovery and recently a dinosaur at the Museum of Wales was shown to be a Victorian hoax.


There are MANY others that are the pillars of Evolutionary teachings.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420


Your response was idiotic and illogical. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm just saying your response was childish at best.






Is that your idea of insulting the post without insulting its author Davey?

My post told me to tell you, "sticks and stones"



- Con



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
Are creationists polluting the minds of our youth?

No more than Evolutionists who claim that humans absolutely evolved from slime.

Both are theories. Neither has been proven. Neither can be.
(Unless God Himself appears and says 'I did it'.)

** Natural selection has been proven, but evolution has not been.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420


So if it's extinct, that means it once existed, right?

Or maybe you're just being purposefully ignorant about the mountains of evidence because it doesn't suit the beliefs you have been indoctrinated with.

Creationism is still a baseless, unfounded, untestable, unfalsifiable theory. Evolution is none of those. One makes for a real, scientific theory, and the other makes for a fairy tale.




So if it's extinct, that means it once existed, right?


yeah, it existed but I wouldn't go there if I were you because it doesn't serve your case to find out piltdownman wasn't the product of evolution but was "created" because real evidence doesn't suit their beliefs they try to indoctrinate everyone else with.

Evolution is Science alright,,

Science Fiction

- Con



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


** Natural selection has been proven, but evolution has not been.

Natura

Yeah but that's where they use their Atheist semantics wordplay games.
You always have to watch out which "type" of evolution they are talking about regarding "natural selection" and new species. They like setting up strawmen using the "variable definitions" .


Darwin was correct about natural selection—we do observe small changes in living things, and many new species of animals and plants have arisen. However, now that we understand more about the science of genetics, we know that the processes of natural selection and mutation can never form new kinds of animals or plants, but only new species or varieties within the same kind.
www.answersingenesis.org...


We were created perfectly intact. Looks like the Bible was right after all

- Con

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted 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


Redneck, it's quite clear that you have no idea what a scientific theory really is, you have very low standards for "evidedence", and you simply don't understand the theory of evolution nor the shear mountains of evidence supporting it. You speak as if you've learned evolution from a bunch of Creationists. Not a wise choice if you actually want to understand the topic.

It's also interesting that you pretended to state the theory of evolution in a couple of paragraphs and then challenged someone to quote the theory of Creationism in the same level of detail. Interestingly, you went into no detail whatsoever in your summary of evolution and then act as if you did.

If you truly want to debate the issue, we must have a common frame of reference. You clearly do not even truly understand the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it. Therefore, no debate can occur.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Redneck,

Would you like some proof the evolution is true and Creationism is false:

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neiby
Redneck,

Would you like some proof the evolution is true and Creationism is false:

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.


That video sets up the same strawman as usual.
I see evolution proponents do it every single time.

I am going to dissasemble this video and re-upload it exploiting the deceptions so often seen and used by Atheist/evolutionists. Those seen in this video are analogous to Bar room parlor tricks.

in the meantime www.abovetopsecret.com...

- Con



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Archaeoraptor is not the same thing as Archaeopteryx
the former is a hoax, the latter is not.
the names are very familiar, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

...and you have 4 out of 40 million
...and the people who debunked the 4 were....evolutionary scientists!

...notice something about that? science self corrects. scientists admit when they're wrong.

they've yet to disprove any of the Australopithecus specimens as hoaxes
or the neanderthal's
or homo hablis or erectus

or the recently discovered transitional form between water and land...



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

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.


That's the same thing I am suggesting. Please, point out one place here (or in any forum) where I have suggested evolution not be taught. I am suggesting that it is taught, and therefore it is illogical to cry foul when another theory is taught as well.


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.


In my home, I stress the importance of science and scientific thinking, understanding the theories presented, making intelligent decisions based on evidence (not opinion), the importance of creative writing and proper grammar, etiquette, and most importantly, mathematics. Both of my children attend public school, and both are straight-A students, both on the honor rolls, Who's Who among High School Students, Beta Club officers, National honor Roll inductees, and my eldest is also in her Spanish Club, SGA, and has already received a scholarship from JUNIOR HIGH. She intends to be a psychiatrist and has already passed every grad exam before her senior year, and has 8 quarter-hours credit at the local college.

Sorry to burst that little fantasy.

reply to post by weemadmental

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?


Oh, maybe you're right. How did you manage to breed corn with beans and get turnips? I've not been able to do that.

Sheesh, read the posts. I already explained that.

reply to post by darkelf

I went to school in the 1960s. We were taught the "theory of evolution" and the Biblical view of creation. We were allowed to make our own decisions on which to believe. Of course, we also had prayer and the pledge of alligence each day. That schools no longer allow children to make their own decisions does not suprise me.


Well said. that's all I want. People will make the proper decisions when given the complete truth about the options.

reply to post by Conspiriology
I am going to be laughing the rest of the day! Beautiful!


reply to post by dave420

Creationism is still a baseless, unfounded, untestable, unfalsifiable theory. Evolution is none of those. One makes for a real, scientific theory, and the other makes for a fairy tale.


I still haven't heard anyone here give me an explanation of what creationists even believe, as I did with evolution. Care to fix that? It might make your claims a bit more 'scientific' if you knew what you were calling a fairy tale.

reply to post by Neiby

If you truly want to debate the issue, we must have a common frame of reference. You clearly do not even truly understand the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it. Therefore, no debate can occur.


Oh, forgive me. Exactly what among my brief summary was false/misleading? You left that part out.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

they've yet to disprove any of the Australopithecus specimens as hoaxes
or the neanderthal's
or homo hablis or erectus


Absolutely correct! Which is why evolution is still a theory. That does not go to the issue of this thread, however, which is why creationism must never be taught as theory.

Sorry to lump everyone together, but I do have to work, you know.

TheRedneck


[edit on 2-4-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Redneck, I didn't say your summary was false or misleading, it was just woefully incomplete. You seem to be an intelligent person, but you honestly just don't understand the theory of evolution. You may think you do, but it is quite clear from your posts that you do not. You speak as if you learned about evolution from a Creationist.

As I said, we must have a common frame of reference for a debate to occur. A real debate can only occur when both parties to it understand the issues at hand. As it stands now, you don't understand enough about the theory to know when you're being presented with incontrovertible evidence.

By the way, I welcome your analysis of the DNA deception. Have you completed that yet? I'd love to hear what strawman you think was created in that argument.

I should also mention that I'm exceedingly familiar with Creationist arguments because I used was one for many years. I used to argue against evolution with my friends. I studied Creationism in depth. I read all the books at the time, I went to the local conferences, and I subscribed to the ICR newsletters. So, although I'm not going to bother, I most certainly could give a fairly in-depth summary of Creationism.

Actually, I will present a short summary: "God did it."



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


i'll just respond to your response to me

...it's a theory, yes. lots of things are still "just theories"
like cell theory
or the theory of gravitation
or germ theory

we don't teach alternatives to cell theory...which there were
we don't teach an alternative to gravitation
and we don't teach about humors

here is something more from talk origins on it "still being a theory"

www.talkorigins.org...

and creationism cannot be taught as a theory, as it is not a theory, it's a hypothesis. "an intelligent designer designed everything"



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join