|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why not teach problems with ToE in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
you left out the end of that sentence, it should have read 'abiogenesis and evolution are often put together by creationists'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
tubi417 writes:
Um, no. Only people like you tend to think that they are together. For us science people, they're 2 completely different subjects. abiogenesis and evolution are often put together The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
For a little on hemoglobin C, see
EvC Forum: Gene pool deeper? I've got more after you look that one over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
abiogenesis and evolution are often put together Only by those who either do not understand what they are talking about or that have some ulterior motive. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think I have to disgree with some of the comments about who puts abiogenesis and evolution together and who doesn't.
They are, of course, rather different disciplines; one being chemisty and one being biology. However, when these subjects are being rushed over in a very few weeks of high school science they sure look like they are together. It seems to me that you find geology and evolution (because of fossils) being taught within pages of each other in some texts and then a half page somewhere in there on the ideas of origins of living things. The distinctness of the disciplines doesn't show up when the coverage is so very light. For this reason I would excuse the average creationist when they come in here confused about it. What I can't excuse is the professional creationists who know better but use it as a red-herring in discussions of the ToE. THAT is dishonest. And let's remember that if you are studying the evolution of life on earth it is a pretty obvious question to bring up "How did it start? ". Let's be fair about that too. Darwin set the stage correctly originally. He made it clear he was NOT talking about the orgins of life. He didn't even to commit to just one ancestor to all life. Those issues were not what he was discussing and, as we've pointed out, separate questions to the ones he was answering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Nosyned writes:
Which brings me full circle back to what I said millions of years ago... more like a few months ago. Why tolerate those with a high school understanding of the subject and think that they know more than people with years of experience in the matter? It would have been a lot better for him to make the mistake once, twice, then admit his mistake and ask some questions about it. However, when these subjects are being rushed over in a very few weeks of high school science they sure look like they are together. However, in this case, we are seeing a persistence in his willingness to remain ignorant. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: We aren't against it. However, we are against teaching falsehoods in science class. Let's go over the ones you listed.
quote: Firstly, the fact that harmful and neutral mutations outweigh the number of beneficial mutations is not a problem for the theory of evolution. Because of natural selection, harmful mutations are weeded out of the population, beneficial mutations spread throughout the population, and neutral mutations spread randomly through the population. Hence, there is no problem. However, there is a huge problem with your teacher's understanding of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution. Secondly, mutations DO add new information to the genome. Take the nylong bug for example. A mutation in the bacteria caused the creation of a brand new enzyme that was able to digest nylon derivatives found in nylon factories. A new enzyme is new information, and it was caused by a mutation. This supposed problem actually doesn't exist, and I am starting to wonder if you created a fictional classroom here.
quote: Firstly, evolution says nothing about how life originated. Secondly, not one scientist claims that life arose out of nothing. Instead, they claim that life arose through chemical reactions on earth. Molecules and chemical reactions are not "nothing". Again, I am very suspicious that this classroom curiculum is non-existant given the poor understanding of science that went into it.
quote: The scientific community has no problems with these fossils. The only objections I have ever heard is from creationists with degrees in electrical engineering. And even then, the problems they have with these fossils stems with the conflict between real data and their interpretation of Genesis, really not the best scientific argument I have ever heard. {quoteWe weren't taught about how god or the Bible could explain anything because we can't deal with religion in school, although I feel evoltuion is pretty much religion.[/quote] Firstly, you also weren't taught about how Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, or the Great Spirit could explain anything either. Secondly, evolution is taught in public science classrooms because it is areligious. It makes no statements about any religion. Evolution is based on evidence, it's theories are cosistent with all objective observations, and evolution is falsified by none of it. Not once in the last sentence did I have to insert a diety. Why is that? Maybe because evolution is not a religion?
quote: And those people that claim evolution is a solid, undeniable fact are not offering a scientific opinion. They are pushing science beyond what it is capable of doing. However, evolution is so well supported that scientists base their work on it, and work well it does. Name one scientist using creationism today that has made an earth shattering discovery. The answer is none. According to you, we should abandon a model that works for one that doesn't work. Sounds ludicrous to me.
quote: Nothing. I have learned quite a bit about creationists and their theories over the last few years. The problem is presenting this in a science class of impressionable youths, therefore giving the impression that creationism has a leg to stand on when in fact it is only supported by religious faith. However, creationism would be fine if it was included in a comparative religions course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
what does he say that are lies? For instance, he's repeatedly made the claim that "human protiens are closer to a bullfrog's than to a chimpanzee's", though he's never substantiated that claim or pointed to which specific protiens he's referring to. Moreover he's refused to relinquish the claim even in the face of contradicting evidence. In other words, it's a claim he knows is false but repeats anyway, which makes him a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
what does he say that are lies? ....just about everything. go read the t.o faq on hovind, and the assorted links.
abiogenesis and evolution are often put together another example of creationist lies. they have nothing to do with each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tubi417 Inactive Member |
Does this Hovind guy have a website?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
You can also go here for a list of his lies (300 at last count). It is a tough job to keep up with the BS he puts out. I think people gave up after 300.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
here's another good link: How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments
and another: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ anything you see taking these claims as serious challenges to evolution is laughable at best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Take no notice - post in error.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-21-2004 04:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jasonb Inactive Member |
To the Atheists:
Imagine if your child one day came home from school with a Bible, issued by his science teacher, and told you he had to read Genesis 1 for homework. You call the school and the principle informs you that they have abandoned all teachings on evolution an adopted a Christian-Creation curriculum on the origins of man and the universe. You tell the principle that you are not a Christian and you do not believe in God and don’t want the school telling your child any different. The principle responds that it’s just a theory in one class subject and you are free to teach your child different when they get home and the school can’t be expected to teach only what you believe. What would you do? Sue? Protest? Write your Senator? Refuse to allow your child back to school until the curriculum was changed? Would you be outraged? Would you be angry? To the Christian:Why are you not angry? Why are you not outraged? The above scenario happened to us. And even today we have done very little about it. Teaching the flaws in the ToE will not win your child for Christ. Trying to simply counter and re-teach what they learn every day, from believable, likable, seemingly trustworthy teachers, is not effective. You cannot tell your child, listen to everything they say except when they talk about evolution, and expect them to fully embrace the truth, without confusion. Christianity will never again be taught in the public schools. The atheists would never allow it. The strength of the resistance to such a movement from the atheists would simply over power any opposition. They would fight tooth and nail, with all their might, to stop such a thing. It seems to me that their passion for their unbelief is stronger than our passion for God. Brothers and Sisters, it ought not to be. Jason B
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024