|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Dont start that crap man. I can think for myself and besides he never said anything about biology it was physics class I never said you couldn't think for yourself. He told you evolution was crap. Evolution is biology. Therfore he told you about biology. In any case it's not really the point. The point is that there is no reason to believe anything about physics is more valid than what biology says. When talking about biology, the biology is more important than the physics. If evolution was contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics (it isn't) then that would be proof that the second law of thermodynamics is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
1. evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. earth is an open system that receives energy from sun. when no more energy is input into the system, then entropy will take over. saying that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is like saying you could not develop into a more complex human from a single-celled zygote!
2. evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. one example of evolution that we have all seen in our time is the development of drug-resistant bacteria. 3. transitional fossils are abundant. the whale series, the horse series, the synapsids, archeaopteryx, etc. hurry, go to your school and ask for your money back. also, if you are going to continue to parrot false and misleading ideas, provide a better argument than "b/c he/she/i said so".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Hey Jazz'. We know you can think for yourself, everybody here does or they would not attend.
But to be honest (I'm creo), the statement " evolution is a religion " is best avoided. Why? - Because, 1. It is a theory which holds nor religious principles or doctrine. 2. It deals with biology alone. Any learning of the theory shows us this, as you probably know. 3. It is based on "Theory" in the scientific sense of the word, and as we all know scientific theory is/can be negotiated, whereas religion cannot be amongst the religious. So it's a bit like saying " Gravity is a religion "If as creationists we say these things, our arguments will start to look desperate at best. I only tell you this because I've discovered how frustrating it can be when we creationists call evolutionists religious. That's not their ball park. Infact they don't really deal with it religiously, they literally are the antithesis of religious. I agree God should be taught in schools, I've argued for the science class in the past (for creation), but the problem is it is also Philosophical and Theological as well as a bit of Science. Biology is only science. That might be the difference, humans enjoy categorizing, how do you categorize Creation?Don't get me wrong, I too think there is scientific aspects to Apologetics, but at most - aspects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I'm still more interested in the educational background of the creationists here. Is it only an accident that most of them have precious little real experience learning about biology? Most of the evolutionists either work in the field or have studied extensively, and we are also familiar with creationist writers and their work. The creationists learn everything second hand and in a scattershot fashion.
Some of the more educated posters from the creationist camp display a troubling messiah complex for their new favorite writer. It could be they just discovered Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Richard Milton, or some other scribe who's fired their imagination with an anti-Darwinian manifesto. The allegations made are assumed to be true, and any attempt to refute the argument is dismissed as ' desperate defense of an outmoded paradigm' or what have you. I agree people should think for themselves, and examine all the evidence available. But think, for crying out loud! The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Is there an correlation between lower levels of education and belief in creationism perhaps? The more generally ignorant you are the more you are inclined to believe?
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Ned,
I'm more inclined to believe it's the pattern of learning. If someone reads widely about science and philosophy, they'll be more able to understand the subtleties of the debate and less likely to fall prey to Phillip Johnson double-talk. However, many tend to think that one source is all they need in order to approach the matter in an informed way. If someone doesn't like science enough to study it from different perspectives, they may end up with a narrow view of the subject as a whole. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Is there an correlation between lower levels of education and belief in creationism perhaps? The more generally ignorant you are the more you are inclined to believe?
Most definitely a correlation - see Appendix Table 7-10 at the National Science Foundation page:http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c7/c7h.htm For example, the percentage of people who said "yes" when asked if early humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs goes from 36% of those who didn't finish high school to 67% of those with postgrad education. The latter number, BTW, is the one that makes me worry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I think you mean the percentage of people who answered the question correctly, i.e. answered 'no.' That's what table 7-10 leads me to believe.
I agree, a mere 67% of grad students responding correctly is disgraceful. Did the other 33% do their post-grad work at Patriot College or something? [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-05-2004] The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Did you flip some information around there? The more educated, more believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed???
Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dammit! That's what I get for trying to get some work done during posting hours!
Yes, I should have typed "no".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
He misread the table (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/append/c7/at07-10.pdf). The percentages are for those providing the correct answer to the questions, not for those answering "yes".
Scarier is the misconceptions of the test constructors. True-or-false question H is, "The universe began with a huge explosion." One of the first misconceptions people have to be disabused of when they discuss cosmic origins here is that it wasn't so much an explosion as an expansion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yeah, Percy, that one bugged me, too. They've been using the same survey for several years, and I guess they keep it for consistency's sake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Hitch:
I saw Message #1 yesterday and thought, "Yawn." But since the thread is staying alive, I thought to answer your Message #2 for support reasons. Hitch asks, "what is wrong with teaching an incredibly well-supported and robust scientific theory that makes no claim on the supernatural in public schools?" Absolutely nothing is wrong with that at all. Hitch asks, "if you want creation to be taught, which...yawn...creation story should we include?" Who cares which and who cares where? Not in public schools for sure. Sunday schools and on the History Channel seems like good places to me. And maybe as substitute programming for that "fair and balanced" morning news show for ninnies. Hitch asks "also, what other parts of the constitution do you want to get rid of next?" I bet they don't want the 2nd ammendment nixed as they might run out of guns to protect themselves from all the rescued fetuses they have adopted and corrupted. But they probably want the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment removed so they can reinstitute capital punishment for homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, etc. Hitch claims, "the ammendment that keeps creationism, a religious viewpoint, out of public schools is the same ammendment that gives you the freedom to express your misguided opinions as well as your choice of religion without gov't hinderance (unless of course it harms the public good...) You mean like when Bubba hollers out "fire!" in a crowded theater showing a newsreel of a Klan cross-burning? Hitch admits, "maybe you should know that i am one of 'those' science teachers. you know the kind that teaches kids how to think critically and exam evidence and perform actual science." Thank god for good public school instructors dedicated to providing our children with quality education. And, thank you Hitch! Hitch says, "if i want to read the bible to children, i'd do it in sunday 'compulsory education' school." I disagree. I would make that particular class optional. Disclaimer: I think everyone should read the Exodus story, Samuels One and Two, Ecclesiastes, Ezra, and Ester at a minimum. Peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
thank you. i appreciate the support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
what is wrong with teaching an incredibly well-supported and robust scientific theory that makes no claim on the supernatural in public schools The results! (poor kids brought up with no clue, no hope, no right or wrong etc.) Also, I might feel better if evolution was taught as supernatural, as it is a faith based religion of unbelief in God.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024