Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 277 of 308 (388024)
03-04-2007 9:10 AM


Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
The title of my topic should give you a clue as to what situation you are in. You need a job in a public school. I don't think you have a chance to get a fair hearing. Historical Geography? My personal belief is that altho I am a YECer, I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools. (Moreover, I yet to see where evolution is used in technological applications.)
Edited by fooj, : bad grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 11:48 AM fooj has replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 285 of 308 (388080)
03-04-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by jar
03-04-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
While it is true that private schools do not have to teach Evolution, they really should unless they are committed to imposing a cult of ignorance on the students. The Facts are that Evolution happened, that the Earth is something over 4 billion years old and the universe over 14 billion years old.
A theory (aka strong conclusion) which brings with it no discernable technological benefits cannot be a fact.
Edited by fooj, : bad posting result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 11:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 3:25 PM fooj has replied
 Message 289 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 4:12 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 290 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 4:40 PM fooj has replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 287 of 308 (388097)
03-04-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
To assert that evolution is a theory with no technological benefits is nonsensical. The benefits of evolutionary biology are found in every field that deals with the world of living things.
Biology would exist with Darwin's theory; Geology is just earth physics; and medicine never needed Darwin's theory when DNA was discovered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 3:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 4:05 PM fooj has not replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 291 of 308 (388123)
03-04-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by jar
03-04-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
Second, the theories such as the Theory of Evolution (as opposed to the Fact that Evolution happened) certainly do have "discernable[sic] technological benefits". The whole field of Genetics is based on the Theory of Evolution; all of modern geology is based on an old earth; all of astronomy is based on an old Universe. The fact that we can use other animals to test new drugs is based on the fact that they are related to us.
The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution. While it is true that most geologists have the premise of an old earth, a young earth geology fits in well with Gold's theory of a hot biosphere. Secondly, astronomy borders on psuedoscience by giving us theories of light years and black holes. I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy. There was no big bang, the universe gave no indication of when it began but life on earth began suddenly.
Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model. No light years, no fossil fuels, no black holes. C has always been about the max speed of an electron. (I believe photons are much faster than 186K-miles/sec.)
There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 4:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 6:54 PM fooj has replied
 Message 294 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 7:21 PM fooj has replied
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2007 7:26 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 8:35 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:05 PM fooj has replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 293 of 308 (388129)
03-04-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Chiroptera
03-04-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
I meant a nuclear plasmologist's theory. I wish I knew the guy's name. He discovered galaxies, "gas clouds", stars all exhibit plasma matter like behavior.
Edited by fooj, : Adding some detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 6:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 8:39 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 8:44 PM fooj has replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 299 of 308 (388149)
03-04-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by jar
03-04-2007 7:21 PM


Re: Young Earth is simply Willful ignorance.
quote:
Sorry, but DNA was simply another step in the field of Genetics. Unfortunately for the Biblical Creationists and the Young Earth supporters, it is just another nail in the Coffin of Ignorance called YEC and Biblical Creationism. Two really big things came with the discovery and partial decoding of DNA. One is the fact that every living thing is related. But the second biggest thing is that DNA totally destroyed any hope that there was ever a world-wide flood or a single creation where all kinds were made in a short period of time.
The worldwide flood was not dependent on any DNA bottlenecks. Rather bottlenecks would prevent a good outcome from a flood which is described in genesis. (eg, fresh water mixing with salt water). The flood merely curtained the mountains or hills; and there was an ideal gene pool from which everything spring. DNA became limited by change in atmosphere, and inbreeding became a problem. I don't believe most fossils are flood related though, since the earth was cleaved after the flood. This happened because of the waters on the high place (translated heaven) broke.
quote:
Young Earth or Biblical Creationism should only be taught in schools as examples of really bad science and as clear examples both of how Science rejects pseudoscience and as how ignorant people can be persuaded to believe absolute nonsense.
I think you are overeacting. If it is not plausible fact as you say, noone will waste their time teaching it. You also have failed to show how genetics can be random. Since the tools for decoding are in the organism and since 'primates' are not like bugs, they could not have speciated into human beings. There is no mechanism in the sperm of apes and primates to suggest the ability to speciate.
quote:
Again, since no one has EVERY presented a Young Earth Creationist Model, it doesn't much matter. In addition, simply fitting with some model does not add much support. What supports the absolute FACT of Evolution and Old Earth, even older Universe, is that many, many different lines of question all lead to the same conclusions.
I think it is relevent to point out when an unusual model is forced into an old-earth chronology, when it points the other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 7:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:09 PM fooj has not replied
 Message 305 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 9:25 PM fooj has not replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 300 of 308 (388150)
03-04-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dr Adequate
03-04-2007 8:44 PM


Real title
plamacist then. The reference is still very obscure. I wish I could find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 8:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 303 of 308 (388154)
03-04-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 9:05 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
Based on what evidence? And if that's true, why is it that we've never observed a photon travelling faster than that speed?
You have a lot of ideas that don't bear any connection to the real world.
Electrons have been observes to go very close to C, but photons are likely too fast to be seen going places. Since light is either made of electrons or photon then light is either at the speed of C or much faster. If light is electrons, then everyone is wrong.
I very much doubt light is loose electrons, but I could be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:21 PM fooj has replied
 Message 307 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 9:28 PM fooj has not replied

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 6121 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 306 of 308 (388159)
03-04-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 9:21 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
In fact, measuring the speed of light is so easy, it's regularly done in class by undergraduate physics majors. All it takes is some mirrors.
C is actually the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation. If the electron makes photons by decaying, that suggests photons are much faster than an electron which would be C. I don't make these things up; some just don't understand the facts well.
Edited by fooj, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by AdminNem, posted 03-04-2007 9:30 PM fooj has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024