Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

This guy wrote one of his grad papers "debunking" Darwin (I was handed the paper being told he had actually proved a major tenet of Darwin's theories wrong), and disconnected genotype from phenotype. That latter fact would seem to be a problem for someone dealing in genetics to get new phenotypes within plant products.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Doublethink=Holding mutually contradictory opinions.Faith has said upthread that she sees nothing wrong with breaking up the existing educational system.

Faith,You are so fundamentally, totally, and hopelessly wrong on just about all your assertions as to the physical (categorical) evidence that exists on these disparate subjects that I question whether it is in fact worth the effort to open a new thread to discuss them. Would you be willing to participate in a thread on why biogeography, ecology, etc falsify your contentions? We can talk in excrutiating detail about the specific data points (i.e., the evidence) and observations that show why you are wrong - but you MUST be willing to delve into those details. Let me know.

Here's an interesting development in the "splintering" issue, which comes from (surprise!) Florida:http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php"TALLAHASSEE Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out leftist totalitarianism by dictator professors in the classrooms of Florida’s universities."And:"Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’ Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue."Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened."Similar suits could be filed by students who don’t believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added. "

quote:

---

Sorry, but we do find unique species on islands. Merely denying the evidence doesn't make it go away.

---

The evidence of different types is obvious, but it isn't evidence of new species. What Darwin found on the Galapagos was simply a different variety of turtle than those on the mainland -- like different breeds of dogs, cats, whatever. If they are "species" because they can no longer interbreed, that's just a definitional mistake. The inability to interbreed is most likely simply another effect of the genetic depletion that results from the severer forms of natural selection. This is what creates what are wrongly called "new species" -- all that has happened is that the gene pool of the population has been extremely limited by one of the processes of selection and brought about a new variety/race from new genetic combinations out of the pool of fewer genetic possibilities.

quote:

---

We have evidence for continental drift in rocks you attribute to the Flood and you would need continents to drift much (much !) faster than the observed rates to account for the drift.

---

Yes, they would, and according to most Flood ideas they DID drift much much faster with all the tectonic activity released by the Flood, and by now have slowed greatly. There is no proof that rates have always been the same as observed rates, just as there is no proof that anything observed now tells us anything for sure about conditions in the past.

quote:

---

And appealing to a concentration of marsupials in Australia is not very good unless you can explain why any animals should even have got that far within a few generatiosn of the Flood - as well as why marsupials should have gone that much further than placental mammals.

---

The idea I was trying to get across was that after the Flood the continents split apart -- yes, this happened pretty rapidly, and isolated marsupials there that were already concentrated in that part of the world, which turned out to be very hospitable to them, and any that might possibly have been left elsewhere were eliminated by natural selection processes.

quote:

---

If your idea of a "good" answer ignores inconvenient facts, and relies on questionable speculations then how can you argue against evolution ? Are you willing to allow our side the same latitude you claim for yourself ?

---

What facts have I ignored on this particular point? I'm giving what I understand to be a standard creationist explanation for these things that makes sense to me. I don't see that it contradicts -- or denies -- any actually KNOWN facts, merely the suppositions of the theory I'm opposing. Your side already exercises the same latitude, the appeal to possible explanations that haven't been proved.

quote:

---

As to the reason why the majority of fossils are marine the explanation is a simple combination of two facts. One is that marine environments are often good areas from a point of view of preservation of fossils and another is that a good amount of marine life is well-suited to be preserved by fossilisation (shellfish, for instance).

---

Yes, and what of these two observations contradicts the scenario I gave? Add them to the list of those factors favoring a Flood. I simply hadn't been aware that there is such a great preponderance of marine fossils in the fossil record, and this fact happens to be very compatible with Flood assumptions.

quote:

---

And while you now talk about rapid burial of marine life in the Flood I can only point out that you have angrily denied believing any such thing in the discussion of the marine fossils found at Dinosaur National Monument - instead you isnsited that the Flood waters must have been churning things up until well after the Flood waters had mostly cleared from the land.

---

I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact exchange so I'm not sure you are representing it accurately, but I certainly know that pretty rapid burial is necessary for fossilization in any case, so I don't how I could have said anything that contradicted such an idea. I don't recall saying anything about the DURATION of the churning up until the Flood was receding or any particular time, just that it would have certainly been laden with sediments that WERE stirred up by the Flood. I don't recall speculating about how soon they might have settled down. And I also don't recall focusing on MARINE life at the Dinosaur Monument. Perhaps you can quote me?

quote:

---

This is where science scores over creationism - science is about producing consistent models, not ad hoc excuses with no regard for the actual evidence or consistency.

---

Evolutionism certainly has a leg up on creationism as far as having their act together goes, no doubt there. Nobody knows for sure what would happen in such a Flood. All of it is a seeking for plausible explanations of what is actually observed in terms of the theory -- just as it is for evolutionist explanations.And again, this IS off topic, and I'm going to try to stick to the education theme now.

quote:

---

Faith writes:

By knowing/coming to the conclusion that the Bible is THE word of THE God and that it alone explains everything;

​

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. How do we KNOW that the six-day creation model presented in the bible is truth and not any other religious text?

---

You can't know it by empirical proof. That's not how the Bible works. You either believe it or you don't.

quote:

---

I believe there are absolutely the best rational reasons for this view of the Bible, but in the end everybody believes whatever they believe.

​

Would you, then, say that truth is subjective?

---

Absolutely not. It is absolutely objective. You simply have trouble believing that true objective knowledge can be had by believing witnesses as much as by empirical evidence that can be demonstrated.And what's ironic about this is that the ToE is not based on empirical evidence.

quote:

---

Wow this thing really took off when I looked the other way for a sec... or maybe while I was sleeping. In any case, I am sorry for getting into this late.
Faith, don't use this thread to prosyletize okay?

---

If anyone would simply pay attention to the actual sequence of posts you would see that I am not proselytizing, I am answering questions others raise and I don't go beyond the answers necessary to make the point. The answers are part of the discussion. Just because you all eliminate certain content on the basis of its being some special category called "religion" I don't. ALL of it is relevant to questions of fact and truth.

quote:

---

Also, let's not get into fictitious accounts of how Xianity was the basis of higher education... snooze. And most of all, let's not pretend that we don't know what I was talking about.

---

Many accusations there. I'm sorry, it's been a while since I visited this thread as I got occupied elsewhere and I don't remember the sequence, but Christianity WAS the inspiration for higher education (as well as universal lower education) and if you want to start a thread about it, please do so.

quote:

---

This entire thread was started because of a little exchange we had from the following comment you made in this post:

​

Those who regard the ToE as a false theory should not have it imposed on their children either. Even if you think they are wrong, communities ought to have the right to pursue and teach their own beliefs (as long as none of it threatens public safety of course). The whole point of American freedoms was the recognition that there are different views and one mustn't be allowed to silence or intimidate another.

​

IF communities have the RIGHT to pursue and teach their own beliefs, that means that ALL communities have the RIGHT to pursue and teach their own beliefs.

​

Thus communities that disagree with round earth theories should be able to teach flat earth theories, those that disagree with heliocentric theories should be able to teach earth centered theories, those that disagree with "holocaust" theories can teach about the lies Jews perpetrated in order to frame the Nazis and gain power, etc etc.

​

That is the LOGICAL result of your statement and what I immediately questioned. You said to open a thread, I did, and here I find you acting like you think the debate is on whether Xian schooling can provide a good education? Come on.

---

Perhaps I misunderstood but you seemed to be saying that you expected homeschoolers and Christian schools to teach something akin to flat earth theory and try to impose a lower standard of education on the nation, and I answered.

quote:

---

So let's ignore all the blah blah on whether Xians can provide good schooling and address the actual question. If the premise is that all people's beliefs should be allowed into standard education, then how do you prevent the splintering of education into many different "truth factories"? How will degrees mean anything when they can cover much different theories and methodologies.

---

They won't. I don't understand why this worries you, and I thought I already made it clear that I expect Christians and all others to meet the standards set and in fact they do. That was a big part of the discussion you just dismissed as off topic. I think you maybe need to refine your topic better.

quote:

---

How can employers and other educators know what to expect when they are looking at a degreed student from the US?

---

They'll look at whatever schools have earned a good reputation as they always do.

quote:

---

I really don't mind if kids are schooled at home. I would prefer mine to be. The question is regarding standardization of curricula such that a degreed student is sufficiently knowledgeable in certain fields.

---

What IS your worry, Holmes? This has nothing to do with any reality that I know of. The criteria are MET -- by homeschoolers, by Christian schools, etc. There is no desire on the part of Christians to marginalize their children -- they WANT them to master the standardized curricula.

quote:

---

Without that degrees are as good as monopoly money, and the idea that everyone gets to have their beliefs taught as an educational standard destroys any concept of a standard.

​

If this is not the case, then make your argument why this is not the case.

---

Best I can do given my inability to grasp what is really bothering you.

quote:

---

The facts are going to turn out to be consistent with God's creation of all species in the same six-day period that He created the universe and mankind.

​

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.

---

It was a prediction, no more, no less. Time will tell.

quote:

---

You are so fundamentally, totally, and hopelessly wrong on just about all your assertions as to the physical (categorical) evidence that exists on these disparate subjects that I question whether it is in fact worth the effort to open a new thread to discuss them. Would you be willing to participate in a thread on why biogeography, ecology, etc falsify your contentions? We can talk in excrutiating detail about the specific data points (i.e., the evidence) and observations that show why you are wrong - but you MUST be willing to delve into those details. Let me know.

---

I have no idea. Be more specific about what exactly you have in mind.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

No new facts. Same old facts, understood better. It's the reasoning more than the facts, that will prove it. But no doubt a different emphasis on certain facts also, some that evolutionists disregard. I'd have to think harder than I'm up to at the moment to provide examples. Perhaps eventually.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know that every single line is not wrong. Sorry. Besides, you guys have been feeding me the facts so if they're wrong that's not my fault.

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

This got discussed and I quoted evolutionists and you apparently missed it. If I'm up to it I will eventually track it down again.{Fixed quote box. - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-05-2005 02:41 AM

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.

Ya know, your contentless posts are getting pretty cryptic. If you aren't going to explain your points why should I listen to you at all?