Page 1 of 4
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:05 pm
It's so very sad, isn't it? The American public school system has become so lost it's bordering on corrupt (perhaps it even passed that border) and our children are suffering the consequences. Innocent children enter school each day, and each day they come out with a little less spontaneous laughter, a little less hope, a little less motivation, a little less tolerance, compassion, and caring.
I'm glad to see that you're approaching this paper with an open mind.
Homeschooling has become such a well-framed issue that arguing against it is like arguing against the world being round. I can see that you didn't take my thread very seriously. I can see why you didn't, because I've trolled the internet looking for any resource that backs up my personal experience with this method of education and I have found nothing. I find that strange, because as I have already pointed out, I see a bunch of socially dysfunctional kids when I look at the homeschooled community where I live. I'm sure beyond all doubt that if a survey was taken that looked comprehensively at the issue of homeschoolers' social skills, they would be found to be severely messed up. I'm not defending the lack of a suitable peer group that the public school system so often offers, but I'm perfectly willing to say that homeschooling doesn't work either.
What about the tendency of many homeschooled families to ignore scientific principles and to teach their innocent kids that there is no such thing as evolution? I'll never forget hearing one homeschooled kid spew a bunch of baloney that his family had fed him about scientists falsifying primate skeletons to "seem" as though they had evolved. (If you all leap to the defense of religious explanations over scientific ones, you are only going to prove my point.)
I bet, Gabrielle, that you could make this a great paper. It can be a good exercise to write a paper that attempts to disprove something that you believe in, if you approach it with the correct attitude.
As a little aside, I find some of the grammar, spelling and overall writing style habits at the forum appalling. You can't tell me that some of this is better than what the average English teacher can provide.
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:23 pm
"What about the tendency of many homeschooled families to ignore scientific principles and to teach their innocent kids that there is no such thing as evilution?"
First of all don't pick on our spelling and grammar when you can't spell evolution. Second of all. I teach my children that there is a theory of how the earth was created and it is called evolution. I then teach them that this is not what we believe. If you have questions about the theory of creationism, you can go to www.answersingenesis.com
These site can tell you exactly why science can prove that evolution isn't the answer to the creation of man and The big bang isn't the beginning of the Universe. And third, my children are not being left behind when it comes to socialization. I get complimented on the behavior of my children everyday. While we are out and when we are at other's homes. My children are polite and respectful. Their friends in the public school however are rude and disrepectful. They try to teach my children bad words and behavior. These children I no longer allow at my home. I am not about to let my children hang out with bad influences. I plan on preparing them for how to deal with people like that in life and be their when they have to. I am not going to send my children out into the world without any training. And I am sorry for those children that are.
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:26 pm
I apologize profusely for the spelling mistake. It has now been edited.
Evolution is religion, not science...
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:15 pm
I'll never forget hearing one homeschooled kid spew a bunch of baloney that his family had fed him about scientists falsifying primate skeletons to "seem" as though they had evolved.
Incidently, this is entirely true. To make newly discovered "ancient" skulls appear to be more in-line with evolutionary theory, scientists been known to do such things as dislocate the jaw bone and move it forwards before putting the skull on display. This is perhaps not falsifying the skeleton, but it's certainly falsifying the skeleton's appearance. Add to that the history of "missing link" fakes, and I'm suprised that anyone still believes that there is concrete evidence for humans evolving from monkeys. Evolution is much more religion than science.
Also, there are people alive today in some parts of the world with bone structures identical to "ancient" man, study has shown that thicker jaws come from eat a coarser diet that requires more chewing, and a modern review of supposedly human/simian skeletons (where there is actually enough of the skeleton to examine) shows that differences in posture are just caused by disease. Again, evolutionists are working from a basic assumption and adjusting the evidence to fit, rather than examining the evidence and drastically modifying their theories.
Then there's the Geologic Column fiasco, the problems finding any trees older than the date of the Flood (gee whiz, the oldest trees are just about the right age), various inconsistencies regarding the moon moving away from us at a measured rate and the sun shrinking, and hundreds of other little things that can't be explained by evolutionists. I'm not going to list them all here, but suffice it to say that ridiculing ceationism because it lacks evidentiary support is rather funny considering evolutionary theory is full of holes and has a history of its core evidence being faked.
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:59 pm
Momo3boys, the ICR is a questionable authority at its best and a pseudoscientific deceiver at its worst. Radiometric dating is a solid scientific principle that cannot be shaken by a few religious fundamentalists. The fallacy, not that I want to delve too far into it, is that were the few scientific principles found in conflict with holy texts not extent, there would be nobody trying to disprove them. By extension, the argument is a religious one and not a scientific one, and it is deceptive to pass one off as the other. I don't have a problem with faith-based justification of religious conflicts with the scientific world as long as they are taught to kids along with the accepted scientific theories as a counterweight. I do not see this happening consistently.
A credible link please, Theodore?
Your point is well taken, mom. However, you are talking about high schoolers themselves, while this forum is frequented by adult educators. I challenge you to find an English teacher who would correspond with others in his or her field while displaying basic grammatical flaws or, heaven forbid, all capital letters. I assure you that we are in agreement that the average American possesses a terrible grasp of the English language. However, as you said, it is possible to work with the system and help your child get the best out of his or her education regardless.
Your comments, Tiarali, are hysterical and quite incoherent. I assure you that people of all opinions frequent the public education system and that, working with good teachers, are exposed to many different viewpoints. In fact, I would counter your insinuations of brainwashing by pointing out that homeschoolers are generally exposed to a far more limited range of viewpoints than those in public school. Many homeschoolers (I believe that at least one has responded to this particular thread) actually homeschool with a primary intent of limiting their kids' influences in fear that they will be prematurely corrupted.
And as far as the argument about my seeming anecdotal? Yes, I am, and I'm quite upfront about this. The national media and public opinion seem to dictate that homeschooling is a wonderful option and a glorious antidote against an evil and oppressive public school system. I have not seen homeschooling "succeed" in the kids who live near me or those who I know who live in other locations. I believe that with good research, it will be found that homeschooling is not the cure-all that it has often been made out to be. I find it impossible given the attitudes of homeschooling families and the literature and resources to which they refer to believe that homeschoolers are consistently gaining the social experience necessary to compliment their academic progress.
Radiometric dating is only as accurate as your assumptions:
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:05 pm
Radiometric dating is a solid scientific principle that cannot be shaken by a few religious fundamentalists.
Radiometric dating is solid in principle
, but in actual fact it is vastly inaccurate unless you already know the approximate age of what you're trying to date - and can be sure that all your major variables have remained constant in the past. I'm sure you know that there are a number of different dating methods, each being accurate only for a certain range of time, correct? If you choose a method that's theoretically accurate for long time periods, but test it on a sample that's has a very short age, you'll get a vastly inaccurate result. Radiometric dating is therefore only as accurate as your base assumptions. This principle can (and has) been tested by giving pieces of the same sample to a number of different testing laboratories - which, not terribly surprisingly, results in a number of completely different dates. And there are numerous examples of freshly laid rock being tested as having ages in the thousands of years or even older. So much for radiometric dating. I suggest you go examine your base assumptions in more detail, and see if you can find any flaws.
The fallacy, not that I want to delve too far into it, is that were the few scientific principles found in conflict with holy texts not extent, there would be nobody trying to disprove them. By extension, the argument is a religious one and not a scientific one, and it is deceptive to pass one off as the other.
So your argument is that creationism can't be accurate because people argue against it? That sounds more like religion than science, which is precisely what I argued above. While it is true that creationism can not be proven scientifically, it is also true that it can not be disproved - and that all the major foundational theories of evolution can
be disproved. Name one item listed in the Scopes Trial that has survived intact. Both creationism and
evolution are religions (by definition, belief systems that explain where we came from), and should be given equal weight in the textbooks.
I don't have a problem with faith-based justification of religious conflicts with the scientific world as long as they are taught to kids along with the accepted scientific theories as a counterweight. I do not see this happening consistently.
For every child who is only taught creationism, there are many more who are taught only evolution. I'd be very happy (for the moment) to have both theories given equal weight in the schools, assuming that all known fakes and inaccuracies were also expunged from the sections on evolution. Gill slits in fetuses, for instance, seem to be in quite a few textbooks still, even though the original photos are now known to be fakes. It has also been proven (I have actually seen video footage of this) that successive layers of sediment can be laid by horizontally flowing water in as short a time span as days or even hours. Evolutionists were always puzzled as to how tree trunks could be fossilized standing upright through rock layers spanning millions of years, but now we know. It wasn't millions of years, it was probably just a heck of a lot of sediments dumped over a few days by flowing water.
A credible link please, Theodore?
Which of the above topics do you want links for? Didn't you know all this already? Oh wait, public school textbooks don't give that "other" viewpoint. Name the topics you want more detail on, and I'll help.
As per request, here's the Creation vs Evolution thread.
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:52 pm
As per request, here's the Creation vs Evolution thread. I was already thinking about splitting these posts into a new thread anyway, since we seemed to have gone a little off-topic in the other thread.
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:53 pm
Against Home schooling
Did you know that they, (ICR R.A.T.E. Project) have found C14 inside diamonds that supposedly formed 200 million years ago? C14 can only last 10,000 years at best. Why would there be any C14 left in diamonds after 200 million years?
Theodore has made at least a dozen attempts to provoke an answer from you for some of the most glaring problems with the Theory of Evolution. Could you please answer some of them with evidence?
One more thing...
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:59 pm
Here is a short article from Dave Hunt.
The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven, what are
evolutionists afraid of? Why must evolution be protected from scrutiny? Why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the
pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good
scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?
Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent
design, that ID is just religion, or at least a "backdoor" to religion. But
the facts are that many secular scientists, through observation and
experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they've
obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not
created by mere chance from nothing.
Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There's no religion in the facts [such as] recently discovered groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth . . . . this science [should] be available for scrutiny by critical thinkers -- that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, which we're sure it does not, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
Perhaps evolutionists' avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic
insecurity in their position . . . . evolution cannot stand the test of
science -- it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the
debate can evolutionists hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability.
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:16 pm
Somewhat unrelated, but still interesting, is an article on how oil is most likely produced by methane being heated between the mantle and the crust:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38645
If this is true, then you don't need millions of years of dead animal and plant deposits to account for all that oil.
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:17 pm
I am a Christian, as many homeschooling families are, but I am also a big believer in evolution. There is proof of evolution, proof which I do not believe to be tampered with. I went to school with a girl (which was only about 5 years ago) who was a strict, Baptist and her family had taught her that there was nothing before "Creation" as told in Genesis. According to her and many other Christians, Dinosaurs, neanderthals, Cro-magnum never existed. This is a conspiracy... made by the government to put an end to the bible or something. What no one puts into consideration is the fact the Genesis was written more than 3000 years ago, long before man was doing any sort of archiological wonders. For man of that time, it was uncomprehensible that the sun was the center of the universe... or even that there was a universe. I respect everyone's beliefs and would NEVER tell someone that they are wrong, persay, but I do think that some people need to stop taking the bible so literally. If you were do follow the Old Testiment as devoutly as some do Genesis is particular (and sometimes exclusively) you would not have Christianity but Orthodox Judism, as they are the original authors of the Old Testiment.
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:08 pm
I am curious as to which parts of the Bible that you do take literally? If you don't mind me asking.
It's not about conspiracy for me, I think there is enough evidence against evolution for them to at least come up with a better theory. That would just be good science.
Would you like to hear some of that evidence?
Christianity and evolution?
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:45 pm
It is possible to believe in evolution and be a christian, however it is very hard to teach that practice. When a Child sees that you don't believe the whole Bible, they get confused. How can you take Christ's death on the cross literaly if you don't believe Him when He talks about things that happened in Genesis literally?
Mar 13:19 " For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be. "
If you can't believe what Jesus said, how can you believe He died for you? I am not trying to be mean or argumentative, I just don't understand how it works?
Re: Christianity and evolution?
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:31 pm
God and evolution are mutually exclusive, unless you believe in God only to the extent that God wound the universe up and let it run on its own from there. Since the Christian religion is based on the premise that the entire Bible is true, and the Bible states that God created the stars, moon, Earth, plants, animals, etc. in seven days, you can not believe in both God and evolution. Either the Bible is incorrect, or evolution never happened.
Christianity strictly according to the Bible, by the way, is not the same thing as Judaism, which follows the Old Testament faith through works to the exclusion of New Testament faith through belief alone.
According to her and many other Christians, Dinosaurs, neanderthals, Cro-magnum never existed.
Creationists do not dispute the fact that dinosaurs existed. In fact, the dinosaur fossil record is an excellent argument against evolution, since fossilized dinosaur and human footprints have been found superimposed on one another, and evolutionary theory claims that dinosaurs died out before the first humans evolved. And the description of "behemoth" in the Bible sure sounds like a dinosaur.
As for Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, these are just variations of the existing human race. People with the exact same bone structures are alive today, and it turns out that the differences are attributable to diet (chewing tough food thickens the jaw) and/or disease (rickets and arthritis alter bone structure).
..3000 years ago, long before man was doing any sort of archiological wonders. For man of that time, it was uncomprehensible that the sun was the center of the universe... or even that there was a universe.
What are you basing this on? Ancient civilization was well ahead of its time (by our standards) in the area of mathematics, geometry, and astronomy. You can't assume that just because Europe was so backwards as recently as 500 years ago, no civilizations before then were more advanced. In point of fact, there's exhaustive historical evidence showing the opposite.
There is proof of evolution, proof which I do not believe to be tampered with.
I'd definitely like to hear some of this.
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:34 am
I don't think God and evolution are mutually exclusive at all. And I do take a good portion of the bible at literal, but it was the way back then to talk quite a bit in metaphorical speech. Depending on which denomination of Christian church you attend, you will receive completely different interpretations of many parts of the bible, and that was mainly my point behind the literal comment. I was raised Roman Catholic, with all the ceremony and numerous holidays, especially at this time of year. For a while, my husband and I attended a small church in our home town, a Freewill Baptist. They made MANY comments on how most Catholic holidays are just pagan holidays remade, Palm Sunday and Easter being their main focus. I was pretty astonished, considering Palm Sunday is symbolic of Jesus entering Jerusalem and being greeted by children with palm fronds and that Easter is the celebration of Jesus' resurrection.
I don't have a problem with the creation story at all, in fact I believe something akin to that did happen, but by the time that portion of the bible was recorded, it was probably little more than a family story passed down through generations. We cannot forget that while the bible is the word of God, it was recorded by man, and there is no man alive or dead who did not make mistakes.
I also grew up in Boston MA, and went to the science museum quite often. I cannot remember if it was an actual part of the museum or a temporary exhibit, but at one point I saw the skeleton of a neanderthal woman, nicknamed Lucy. I have since then seen many documentaries, for both sides of the argument, and still completely agree with evolution. I do not think we came from monkeys, but rather simply started out as a less modern form of man. Who can say that God didn't create man as a neanderthal and gave us the power to evolve on our own. After all, look at how much more we know now, in comparison to 2000 years ago when Jesus walked this earth.
I have seen a few shows concerning the human and dinosaur foot prints that were found on the same layer of fossilized mud. I agree that it is strange, but we don't know all that much about our natural history, despite how scientists like to pretend we do. A fish that was thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs was found not too long ago off the coast of Madagascar. Perhaps there was still some remnants of dinosaur life wandering about when man was created... we just don't know... but I really don't think we should just throw out the idea of evolution.