 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 03:38 pm |
|
Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
I'm looking forward to this debate...you are sharp on the sciences Threepac 
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 03:45 pm |
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Threepac wrote:
Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
I'm looking forward to this debate...you are sharp on the sciences Threepac *curtsies* Thank you kindly ma'am.
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 03:54 pm |
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
|
CTHULHU
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 04:27 pm |
|
kenrolf wrote:
I know the reason for the civil war you don’t need to tell me that. And if it’s a misunderstanding then ill admit I was wrong. Also it’s not just the cons acting like brats look around the board and see the anti - religiousness s*** going on with you libs. I’m sure not all of you feel that way but what do you expect to happen if both sides keep talking there s***? As far as your duty goes, I salute you and respect you. Who knows maybe if im in the same branch as you we’ll work together but as I said if my religious freedom is in jeopardy I will damn well fight.
Religious freedom in 'jeopardy'?????!! Now THAT is a fukin' LAUGH!! The religious in this country enjoy more freedoms than ANYONE else for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than worshipping! That does NOTHING for society (and more often hurts it). I DARE you to name ONE instance in which your freedom of relgion has in ANY way been harmed!
I DARE YOU!
I also would suggest that you read up on it a bit. There's a great new book called 'God vs. the Gavel' that outlines the instances in which religion is given special preference in EVERY case. You're so full of bullsht it's DISGUSTING!
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 04:40 pm |
|
CTHULHU wrote: kenrolf wrote:
I know the reason for the civil war you don’t need to tell me that. And if it’s a misunderstanding then ill admit I was wrong. Also it’s not just the cons acting like brats look around the board and see the anti - religiousness s*** going on with you libs. I’m sure not all of you feel that way but what do you expect to happen if both sides keep talking there s***? As far as your duty goes, I salute you and respect you. Who knows maybe if im in the same branch as you we’ll work together but as I said if my religious freedom is in jeopardy I will damn well fight.
Religious freedom in 'jeopardy'?????!! Now THAT is a fukin' LAUGH!! The religious in this country enjoy more freedoms than ANYONE else for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than worshipping! That does NOTHING for society (and more often hurts it). I DARE you to name ONE instance in which your freedom of relgion has in ANY way been harmed!
I DARE YOU!
I also would suggest that you read up on it a bit. There's a great new book called 'God vs. the Gavel' that outlines the instances in which religion is given special preference in EVERY case. You're so full of bullsht it's DISGUSTING!
Time to look at the clock.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 04:46 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 04:48 pm |
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
Not exactly because I posted other sites.
Unfortunately I cannot verify because I don't have access to the books themselves..
But there are numerous sites stating that this theory is still being taught in text books that are in public school.
I will agree to an impasse i.e.. it is in the unknown.
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 04:57 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
I have yet to find any current text book that is still in use that describes Haekels theories as anything more than a footnote in history, that was ultimately incorrect.
However, textbooks do still show similiarities in verterbrate embryos and yes, there are striking similiarities.
Recapitulation was incorrect. However, that is what science is all about. One scientists puts forth a ground breaking theory, and ten scientists fall over themselves trying to disprove it. Ultimately, science is advanced.
Creationism has no such system of checks and balances. As a matter of fact, there is much infighting amongst creationists (Especially Ken Ham of AiG and the guys at ICR.org). As a matter of fact,AiG has a very interesting webpage entitled
Arguments Creationists should not use:
Here it is.
What is important for creationists to defend, and what should be held more loosely?
Darwin recanted on his deathbed’. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If Ken Ham recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.
Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either). See also Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical).
long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.’ Not promoted by major creationist organizations, but an hoax in wide circulation, especially on the Internet.
Essentially the same story, now widely circulated on the Internet, appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 book The Harmony of Science and Scripture by Harry Rimmer. Evidently an unknown person embellished it with modern organization names and modern calculating devices.
Also, the whole story is mathematically impossible—it requires a fixed reference point before Joshua’s long day. In fact we would need to cross-check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points be known to within an accuracy of a few minutes. It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross-check is simply not possible. Anyway, the earliest historically recorded eclipse occurred in 1217 BC, nearly two centuries after Joshua. So there is no way the missing day could be detected by any computer. See also Has NASA Discovered a ‘Missing Day’? for historical and scientific documentation that this alleged discovery is mythological.
Note that discrediting this myth doesn’t mean that the events of Joshua 10 didn’t happen. Features in the account support its reliability, e.g. the moon was also slowed down. This was not necessary to prolong the day, but this would be observed from Earth’s reference frame if God had accomplished this miracle by slowing Earth’s rotation. See Joshua’s long day—did it really happen?
Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe’. This is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It’s most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof of a snap freeze, because the elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area—a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in mid-western USA, where the ground was not frozen. See also technical PDF article.
Where are all the human fossils? from the Answers Book.
Who was ‘Java man’?
Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence and Letting rotting sharks lie: Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.
Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’ rib.
Archaeopteryx is a fraud’. Archaeopteryx was genuine (unlike Archaeoraptor, a ‘Piltdown bird’), as shown by anatomical studies and close analysis of the fossil slab. It was a true bird, not a ‘missing link’.(I do have to add somthing here. How many birds do we have today with teeth, claws, and long tails with a paddle like tail? It is a transitional fossil, and the creationists are just trying to play semantics games to negate that fact.)
Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?
Q&A: Speciation.
Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.
[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/link.asp?http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-151.htm]Paluxy tracks[/url] prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
Darwin v The Eye and An eye for creation).
Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.’ Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and there’s nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, ‘Now the whole earth had one language and one speech’ (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, ‘the LORD confused the language of all the earth’ (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the ‘Earth’ that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘Earth’ refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splitting—another global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart — during Noah’s Flood — see below on plate tectonics.
Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998.
Biblical genealogies for exegetical proof.
Abraham, Jacob, Judah and David. Also, the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, regarded as Messianic by both early Christians and the Jewish Targums, refers to ‘the seed of the woman’. This is supported by Gal. 4:4, ‘God sent forth His Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman.’ Most importantly, for Jesus to have died for our sins, Jesus, the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45), had to share in our humanity (Heb. 2:14), so must have been our relative via common descent from the first Adam as Luke 3:38 says. In fact, seven centuries before His Incarnation, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth). To answer the concern about original sin, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), preventing any sin nature being transmitted. See also The Virginal Conception of Christ for a defence of this foundational doctrine and further discussion of these Biblical passages.
1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.’ To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.
Of course AiG believes that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God’s action in Creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, ‘science really means knowledge’, because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).
Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and Creation , TJ15(2):110–121; 2001.
Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark’ This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible’ There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to Hovind’s reply to this article).
no such thing. See also Physicists’ God-talk.
[/list]
Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? from the Answers Book.
Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.
information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation [see Q&A: Natural Selection].
How can we see distant stars in a young Universe? from the Answers Book.
Q&A: Fossils.
Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, AiG recognises that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
‘The Gospel is in the stars.’ This is an interesting idea, but quite speculative, and many Biblical creationists doubt that it is taught in Scripture, so we do not recommend using it.
[/list]
IF creationists themselves think these arguments are doubtful, why do lay people keep using them to defend ID and creationism?
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:03 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
Not exactly because I posted other sites.
Unfortunately I cannot verify because I don't have access to the books themselves..
But there are numerous sites stating that this theory is still being taught in text books that are in public school.
I will agree to an impasse i.e.. it is in the unknown.
Yes, but it is an unknown in the same sense that we do not know if physics textbooks teach gravity. I cannot prove it, as I only have the Resnick and Halliday books, but I can pretty much guarantee any elementary physics textbook will discuss gravity. Haeckel's theory was disproved long before you or I were born. I am positive it is not being taught, and there is no reason to believe it is. Shall we move on to out next topic?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:05 pm |
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
You have yet to show any intrinsic impossibilities. Unless I missed it we have not yet begun our second topic, and the recapitulation argument was thoroughly shredded.
Shredded?
hehe.. umm.. no.
Last I knew we came to pretty much of an impasse.. agreeing that HAECKEL'S theory was wrong.. but disagreed as to whether or not it was still in text books.
Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. The source you cited was impeached by both myself, and the legal document you found. Thus there is no reason to believe Haeckel's theory is being taught as fact, and the argument was shredded. Agreed?
Not exactly because I posted other sites.
Unfortunately I cannot verify because I don't have access to the books themselves..
But there are numerous sites stating that this theory is still being taught in text books that are in public school.
I will agree to an impasse i.e.. it is in the unknown.
Yes, but it is an unknown in the same sense that we do not know if physics textbooks teach gravity. I cannot prove it, as I only have the Resnick and Halliday books, but I can pretty much guarantee any elementary physics textbook will discuss gravity. Haeckel's theory was disproved long before you or I were born. I am positive it is not being taught, and there is no reason to believe it is. Shall we move on to out next topic?
Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
|
hunter
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:07 pm |
|
LibraLabSoldier wrote: BigMan wrote: LibraLabSoldier wrote: Because, and let me make this perfectly, perfectly crystal clear:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A CREATION MYTH PUMPED UP WITH PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC JARGON TO CONFUSE THE UNINFORMED.
Honestly. Do you think there is some dark cabal of scientists who want to keep the truth hidden just to advance a (according to creationists) discredited theory?
There is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different theories. AS LONG AS THEY ARE THEORIES, AND NOT RELIGIOPOLITICAL AGENDAE.
If it is not a theory please explain how life started.
this should be good.
Evolution is a theory. I did not deny this fact. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
There is a large difference between a scientific theory, and a layman's theory.
Creationism fails as a theory because they start with the answer, and make the information fit their presupposed answer.
Evolution came about because of all of the evidence pointed toward the diversification of life.
Do I know how the initial life started on this planet? No. There are different theories as to how life started.
Panspermia, terraforming, abiogenesis, and others are all ideas. Is it possible some supernatural being said "let there be life" and it was? Yes, that is possible. However, since it is neither testable, quantifiable, provable or disprovable, it does not fit the scientific model.
Therefore, it does not belong in SCIENCE class.
If you want to teach the story of creation, leave it where it belongs. In church, not in the classroom.
Do you honestly want an equal discussion of the evidence for evolution alongside of creationism?
I think it would cast more doubt on the veracity of religion than just the teaching of evolution could by itself.
ON second thought, lets teach them both. It would be easier for people to realize the lies the church tries to feed them.
Every theory starts with an answer and backtracks to the origin. Evolution is no exception. Scientists started with how did we get here, just like the layman did.
I like your second thought. Yes, let's tell them both and let the ones who even care decide for themselves.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:13 pm |
|
Danokan wrote: Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
First, I haven't seen another site claiming that these books were teaching Haeckel's recapitulation, perhaps I missed one of your posts?
The fact of recapitulation that Macarion most likely refers to is the connection between phylogeny and ontogeny, which is a foundation of recapitulation theory that happens to be true. Haeckel extrapolated incorrectly, but this plank of his theory is fairly good evidence for evolution.
|
hunter
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:27 pm |
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
Aussiedawgs wrote: Danokan wrote:
What did I say I wanted taught?
I wish you guys would actually READ what I have posted.
This is what you said:
One can easily teach 'ID' without teaching it.
All you have to do is teach all of the impossibilities and absurd notions concerning "atheistic evolution" and you have already done the job.
The problem is, there are very few "impossibilities and absurdities" - there are however, unanswered questions.
The theory of evolution has never claimed to have all the answers. ID, on the other hand DOES claim to have all the answers because any unanswered question can be attributed to a "supreme being". This isn't science, it's a dead end and it's religon.
Why not teach evolution as the theory that BEST FITS all available facts? Because, that is exactly what it is.
Why not teach evolution then teach all of the intrinsic impossibilities and let the students decide?
How deep does one go in evolution (or any one science) in public schools? Mostly, it is superficially examined is it not? I strongly suspect that grade schools are not the place to go into a lot of depth on comparitive theories/microbiology/genetics etc. As PATruth said, it's hard enough just getting the basics accross. Isn't it sufficient to simply state that evolution is, at this point, the theory that best fits all available facts? Many of the "intrinsic impossibilities" that are used as examples by proponents of ID are inaccurate or debunked by science. What you are stating is to teach evolution in a manner which delibrately descredits it. I have no problems with teaching evolution as the best theory, and then saying that there are still unanswered questions because the purpose of science is to keep seeking answers from the natural world, not from a diety.
The point at which they should be exploring alternative theories and comparative topics is primarily at the University level, is it not? (I could be wrong - it's been years since I've been in grade school). I agree, I've said this since the beginning of the post. Even at the middle and high school grades, I do not believe these kids give it the second thoughts that we do. They care more about where they are going Friday night after the football game.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:29 pm |
|
| ^I think you're generalizing here. Intelligent kids will always ponder the issue. Try to remember that I am 17, Alex(F) is 16, and we've both argued vehemently on the matter. Also, any encroachment of religion into government should be excised. Last edited on Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:29 pm by Threepac
|
hunter
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:39 pm |
|
Threepac wrote: ^I think you're generalizing here. Intelligent kids will always ponder the issue. Try to remember that I am 17, Alex(F) is 16, and we've both argued vehemently on the matter. Also, any encroachment of religion into government should be excised.
Heck, 3Pac, there probably aren't many teachers that know as much as you do. I know you were at the top of your class, but you are in the minority, sad to say. I said most of the kids, and those who are interested enough will do their own research. And if you do your own research, you will find conflicting opinions on both sides. That's why I think it doesn't hurt to tell them all the opinions, let them do the research and find out for themselves.
As far as Alex goes, IMO, Alex just argues to be arguing.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:44 pm |
|
| ^Whether or not that's the case, she makes valid points, so she muyst be researching the issues. Incidentally, there is a pattern in American education of teaching to the dumbest students, and not the brightest. It is one of the reasons we lag in education. If we simply ignore science and teach unfounded ideas, why even have school at all?
|
LibraLabSoldier
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Apache, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 2905 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 05:59 pm |
|
I was the same way in highschool, which put me at odds with the faculty, for the most part.
In Louisiana, they did teach Creation alongside evolution. I did tons of research on my own about everything that interested me. I looked into why people believed in paranormal phenomena, and many other things.
Kids now do research on their own. I find it very encouraging that young people like Threepac and Alex(F) do question things. Kids still have the amazing ability to imagine the impossible. I try to keep that ability sharp in myself, but so far all I have suceeded in doing is being sort of goofy much of the time.
Self study is the hall mark of a gifted student. I was disappointed with the chemistry set that my parents got me, so I set about doing my own experiments....
Did you know it is very easy to manufacture gun powder from simple elements, and consequently leave a crater in your parents back yard big enough to turn into an ornamental fish pond?
It really isnt any wonder my parents were worried that I was nuts.
But this is the same kind of spirit that has moved American innovation forward.
One of the teams on the DARPA challenge was high school kids. ANd they didnt do any worse than the adult teams with corporate funding.
Keep questioning everything.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 07:15 pm |
|
Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
First, I haven't seen another site claiming that these books were teaching Haeckel's recapitulation, perhaps I missed one of your posts?
The fact of recapitulation that Macarion most likely refers to is the connection between phylogeny and ontogeny, which is a foundation of recapitulation theory that happens to be true. Haeckel extrapolated incorrectly, but this plank of his theory is fairly good evidence for evolution.
Danokan, where are you?
|
Danokan
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 07:16 pm |
|
Threepac wrote: Threepac wrote: Danokan wrote: Yes 3pac.
As I said.. it may be the fact that they were using the drawings.. yet several sites say they are teaching the Theory.
As a side note: Macarion in an argument many threads ago brought up the 'FACT OF RECAPITULATION'.
I wonder where they came up with that idea?????????
But .. let's move on.
First, I haven't seen another site claiming that these books were teaching Haeckel's recapitulation, perhaps I missed one of your posts?
The fact of recapitulation that Macarion most likely refers to is the connection between phylogeny and ontogeny, which is a foundation of recapitulation theory that happens to be true. Haeckel extrapolated incorrectly, but this plank of his theory is fairly good evidence for evolution.
Danokan, where are you?
ROFL
Everywhere else.
And getting ready to leave.
|
Threepac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 07:18 pm |
|
| Boo! I was just starting to enjoy this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
