Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

Could you supply some details of the differences in the education that would be given.My impression is that it would include extreme differences in what would be taught about (carrying it through to the end of first degree level):
Cosmology
Physics (specifically relativity and quantum mechanics)
Geology
Biology (including genetics and including pretty well all sub disciplines)
History (based on other comments )
Some chemistryIt would seem to exclude the graduates of such education from a large number of areas would it not?

While the first link is an anecdote about a single family and isn't very meaningful the third one, in particular, offers a rather convincing study.However, it also might cause one to worry about the future. The early homeschoolers would, one might guess, be the more motivated and capable. In fact the study says this:

quote:

---

The background questionnaires returned for this study reveal that, on average, home school parents have more formal education than parents in the general population, with 88% having continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole (Figure 7). Furthermore, almost one in four home school students (24%) has at least one parent who is a certified teacher.

---

What will happen when the above things are not true.In addition, it doesn't separate out all the different approaches and aims of home schoolers. As asked earlier what will they be taught in your scenario?

My reading of the third one was that the study was done independantly.Certainly one would want a separate review of such work but for now I think it has to be taken at face value.However, there are, as noted, still someissues to resolve. As Faith and others say about some of the sciences: "Time will tell". An experiment is being conducted. I do not predict a continuation of such results.

There are upteen jillion bits of data involved. Prove the above statement or retract it.As has been pointed out to you (and you have admitted in more than one place IIRC) you don't know anything about the data. Since you stand on ignorance how can you possibly think that you can make the above statement?

Well, science offers conclusions based on what facts are at hand now. When there are new facts to deal with the conclusions may or may not change.Since we don't know what the new facts are going to be (perhaps you want to make some predictions of what will be found) we go with what we have. If you wish to suggest new conclusions that should be taught in the science classroom then you have to base them on the facts we have in hand now. (the current scientific views do supply predictions of what we will find)I suggest you start by acquainting yourself with a wee smattering of those facts. You have demonstrated that you are pretty much completely blissfully unaware of any of them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-01-2005 01:34 PM

My guess is that you will wait forever for it to come to pass but maybe you could give a hint at how long you think it might take before this prediction is fulfilled.It would be even more interesting if you would suggest what the new facts would be. That is, I know, a big task but any guesses you have might be interesting.The problem is that you are unaware of the facts that we DO have in hand. If you had a teeny, tiny inkling of the nature of those then you might wonder where your new facts could find room to fit.Almost every single line of every single post of yours has been factually wrong. You have been told that over and over but it isn't sinking in. Your picture of the geology of the earth is almost utterl y mistaken. You might do well to try to figure out what the facts actually are.

Until you provide signiticant examples you do understand that no one is going to be particularly impressed. Any one can make statments. It is the ability to back them up that counts. I did say almost every one. If I had to pick a number without researching at all I'd say you are about 80 to 90% wrong. That's a pretty high percentage.You have not shown any sign of understanding the facts that you have been fed. Personally I do think that is partially our fault. We have not taken the time to get to the particularly detailed and basic level that you need. It is however also your shared fault.I don't think you are going to get it straightened out here. It does, as I think has been suggested, require that you dig into the real facts of the geology. Or you need to find someone patient enough here to explain in great detail where you are wrong.Part of the problem, a big part in my opinion, is that you have yet to spell out in any deatail yourself just exactly what you think the facts are. I'm pretty sure I have a rough idea of your picture. If others teased it out of you they might be able to correct you.It is so very far from the actual facts that I think people can not believe you think what you do so they don't answer you.If you really wished to learn something (and I think it is clear that you do not) you might try to spell out your concepts and then maybe they could be corrected.For example,You have held, or still hold, an idea that the geologic column is a description of a world wide series of layers of rock forms. That is not right at all. Maybe I misunderstood this but it is something I got from your posts.From an earlier message: There have been decades and even centuries for these to be answered. How long will it take?We all want the best possible understanding of course. However, we go with the best we have at any given time.Since you suggest that the facts are available and it just takes a better understanding and model I wonder what is taking the creation scientists?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-04-2005 11:02 PM

Well, I'm not a geologist. And you shouldn't be referring to "evolutionists" in the context. It is geolgists that you need to get your information from.However, I'm prepared to stick my neck out and tell you that if you got this impression (and I'm not sure we have the same picture in our minds as it is) then you have been given the wrong impression. Very wrong.

Once you have explained what you think the GC is like then perhaps we can understand and correct you.For starters look around the world today. Is there a uniform layer at the surface everywhere? No. Therefore the will not be one layer across the globe. In fact, we would not expect such a layer anywhere.At any one time there will be a lake putting down a small area of sediments of one kind. Perhaps around that the surface is eroding away. Maybe just over the hill is a large dessert of a few 100 kms in range that is building up as wind deposits more sand there from surrounding mountains. Over the mountains a sea is laying down sediments eroded from the mountains. Part of the mountain range is a series of volcanoes laying down periodic lava flows on the sea floor sediments and the dessert sands. In one part of the world there are many different layers being formed.In another part of the world an inland sea may extend for 1,000's of kilometers laying down approximately similar sediements over a wide area. Over time they harden and maybe exposed when the sea partially retreats. Some of the exposed sediments are eroded others are overlaid by desert sands, lake sedments and lava at the surface. The sea expands again and a new set of sea bottom layers are put down over some of the new dry land sediments. While the rest of the sea stayed in place.Only in a few places are there layers that cover the major time periods of the GC completely. At no time would the entire earth be getting one kind of layer being formed. In fact at no time would the entire earth be getting a new layer, there will be some areas expericnecing erosion.The actual geology is a very, very complex mish mash of different processes working at different times.The GC is a framework within which these may be fitted to help us present the information.That is a non-geologists view of the geology.