Homeschool

[Ctrl Alt Del]

What are parents supposed to do? Teach both evolution and creation as fact, then sit back and watch as their kids struggle to reconcile those views? Children aren't scientists--they can't review the raw facts themselves and do those facts justice.

Almost, you just change the wording from "facts" to "theories", which is exactly what they are. And anyone, even a kid, must be introduced to all the aspects of a determined equation. Initially, those kids will probably follow what their parents believe (as it likely won't matter much to them), so bias is irrelevant. As they mature though, they have more capacity to question those beliefs and, if deemed necessary by them, have their own views on the subject.

[Te Darasuum Mandalor]

Yes, but our neighbors teach their kids not to think like that and teach that they should always believe what they say.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Yes, but our neighbors teach their kids not to think like that and teach that they should always believe what they say.

Well, how old are their kids? That's a rather broad statement as well. If your dad tells you to stay away from the stove or don't touch the outlet, he's most certainly right.

 

If we're restricting ourselves to beliefs, then it really does depend on the child's maturity. I sincerely think it's not wrong to be biased under these circunstances, but it's important to say and show as possible there are different views around.

[Ser'eck]

I was homeschooled from the end of my 7th grade year until graduation. I went to a college to take my G.E.D.. By doing so I was able to graduate 5 months earlier than my would-be public school class.

 

I was homeschooled because at the time there was a lot of bad students and bad things going on. Had every thing from drugs in the class rooms to guns and bomb pranks. My parents got upset with the school not doing anything about the problems. Since then the school has cleaned up.

[Te Darasuum Mandalor]

their kids are ranging from 1 years old to 16 years old.

[Bimmerman]

Man, this thread makes me glad that although my parents have their own belief systems, they never forced them on myself or my brother. Instead, they decided to let us choose the belief system that we like the best as we grew up. My brother is vehemently atheistic, I'm absolutely apathetic (i.e. I don't care about a supreme being, fake, real, or spaghetti monster). When we were homeschooled, none of this GOD IS MASTER YOU ARE SINNER crap was taught; it was strictly math, science (yes, evolution....because that's real), writing, etc. My family is not religious, nor was our education-- a fact I am grateful for every single day.

 

Honestly, if you don't understand evolution by the time you get to college, you deserve to fail biology. Most, if not all credible biology is based on this theory, not this "god invented everything and is the answer to every question we cannot figure out" crap. Maybe I'm cynical, but religion and education should not mix. Homeschoolers that do so for religious regions are fine, just as long as they realize the point of view given to them by their parents is not the accepted and tested theory of qualified professionals.

 

I'm not an atheist (read my statement on how I don't care one way or the other), but I have great troubles taking evangelical homeschooled children seriously when they start spouting their equally unqualified parents' views on biology and science. I could rant and rant, but that's not my point. Children who believe utterly that their parents' or church's believes and viewpoints on evolution (and other things)are without fault deserve to fail in college. Evolution has holes, but is far better than just saying that God did it. That's such a pathetic cop-out. Unless the parents are PhD tenured biology professors, Larry and Sue down at Evangelical Baptidome, who dropped out of college after one semester, have zero ability to teach their children one way or another in a subject they have zero understanding of.

 

Evangelicals give proper homeschooled children a horrid reputation; there's a reason I do not tell anyone I was homeschooled. I do not want to be associated with those fundamentalist fools.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Because, in the context and the situation of now, Evolution, biology, and much of science is still in tests for Homeschooling, college, etc. My two cousins can be homeschooled and my aunt could be crazy religious, but if they don't know science then know what happens? The guy who comes every month to evaluate and test them and their mother may find they are getting severely lacking test scores in, say, science.

The evolution/creation issue is a very, very small part of science--my high school chemistry and physics classes never touched on it, and I only studied it for a few days in biology. The homeschoolers at my church spend a lot of time on science, but when it comes to the evolution/creation issue, they're taught creationism (old earth or young earth depending on the parent) instead of evolution. At most they'll lose a few points on the SAT/ACT since there aren't a zillion evolution questions. So, the idea that homeschooled kids are handicapped in science is not correct. There is so much more to science that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory--meteorology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, etc. The smart homeschooling conservative evangelical parent will present a brief study of evolution so that their kids are aware of what others believe.

Of course, if they really cared about their kids' future, the more practically-minded evangelical homeschoolers would teach their kids evolution, telling them something along the lines of "We don't believe in this, but we don't want to deliberately hamstring you academically, either."

You're all missing the point. What the German family did is not about evolution per se, rather its about the social, behavioral, etc influences extant in a public school:

"The curriculum goes against our Christian values," Uwe says. "German schools use textbooks that force inappropriate subject matter onto young children and tell stories with characters that promote profanity and disrespect."

...neighbors...

12 kids, conservative, iron views... tell me, do you happen to know what curriculum your neighbors do?

[Te Darasuum Mandalor]

the do Tapestry of Grace, I even tried it for one year, it was much too confusing.

[Working Class Hero]

Homeschoolers that do so for religious regions are fine, just as long as they realize the point of view given to them by their parents is not the accepted and tested theory of qualified professionals.

 

I have great troubles taking evangelical homeschooled children seriously when they start spouting their equally unqualified parents' views on biology and science.

I have great trouble taking you seriously when you start spouting your unqualified views on biology and science. Many biologists who are PHDs believe in God. I actually know a bio teacher at college who does. Don't say that every 'qualified professional' believes the same thing. You insult the entire field.

 

Evolution has holes, but is far better than just saying that God did it.

In the parents opinion it's far better to say God did it. What makes your opinion better than theirs?

[jonathan7]

In the parents opinion it's far better to say God did it. What makes your opinion better than theirs?

 

Speaking as a Christian, and someone who also believes in Evolution, the two are no incompatible but the crux of the matter is why you wouldn't teach a theory which is widely prevalent.

 

Bertrand Russell wrote;

 

“The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action.” From essays collected together in the book; 'Why I'm not a Christian'

 

That is I think a sufficient explanation why parents who refuse to teach evolution to their children have taken the road of tyranny and intellectual ignorance. This is because as soon as you begin selecting what is, and is not appropriate to teach, you are infact brain washing individuals; this is especially true considering people like the above described rarely teach their kids to critically think.

 

When I do my Science vs Religion seminars at various Christian events, I always make sure to have a "new earth creationist" involved to present their viewpoint, not because I agree with it, and suffice to say I win any ensuing debates; but because I am not affraid of other viewpoints than my own. I think part of teaching is to provoke those being taught how to think, rather than teaching them what to think. Interestingly, at no "new-earth creationist" event, have they ever asked forward a "old earth" Christian to speak; tells its own story I think. Though generally I would say for the most part I have found many of my fellow Christians to be broadly it would seem to me anti-intellectual, which is considerably unfortunate.

 

It has to be said though I think that the worlds various religions (plus Atheism and Agnosticism) should be taught to young people so they have an understanding of the various view points, and it would also help in understanding different cultures and where they are coming from.

[Working Class Hero]

That is I think a sufficient explanation why parents who refuse to teach evolution to their children have taken the road of tyranny and intellectual ignorance. This is because as soon as you begin selecting what is, and is not appropriate to teach, you are infact brain washing individuals; this is especially true considering people like the above described rarely teach their kids to critically think.

They took their kids out of school because the public school system selects what is appropriate to teach and that should be the right of the parents. The public school is the one trying to brainwash and it is the parents providing other views.

 

It has to be said though I think that the worlds various religions (plus Atheism and Agnosticism) should be taught to young people so they have an understanding of the various view points, and it would also help in understanding different cultures and where they are coming from.

:thmbup1:

[jonathan7]

They took their kids out of school because the public school system selects what is appropriate to teach and that should be the right of the parents. The public school is the one trying to brainwash and it is the parents providing other views.

 

While I have grave issues with the way public schools teach and deal with young people, if I had kids I would send them to public school.

 

It does seem to me curious that your trying to justify indoctrination, by saying its acceptable to pull a child out of public education, so they can trade one form of indoctrination which is less biased, for a more biased form of indoctrination.

 

Furthermore, you clearly don't seem to have taken my point as it was intended. In a democracy, parents via the vote do decided what is put on the public schools agenda; that is to say, if every parent had what they wanted taught at school; nothing would ever get taught. So there is a mix bag approach, so large is the subject matter of what kids could be taught you cannot be taught everything. If, however you are teaching science, evolution is such a massively influential and widespread theory that even it were incorrect, it should still be taught.

 

However it seems to me, that parents who choose to not teach their kids evolution have a far greater motivation of deliberate brainwashing their children than any public school curriculum. There is also a further concern with parents choosing what to teach their kids, what happens if you have a very bright child, who's parents are simple? Should they choose what the bright child learns? He would be held back because of it!

[Working Class Hero]

It does seem to me curious that your trying to justify indoctrination, by saying its acceptable to pull a child out of public education, so they can trade one form of indoctrination which is less biased, for a more biased form of indoctrination.

I'm saying parents should always have a right to override the government when it comes to their children.

 

If, however you are teaching science, evolution is such a massively influential and widespread theory that even it were incorrect, it should still be taught.

So a theory's popularity should decide whether it's taught?

[jonathan7]

I'm saying parents should always have a right to override the government when it comes to their children.

 

Which is why they have the option of homeschooling, however I'm deeply uncomfortable with certain theories not being taught because it disagrees with a parents ideological stand point. The key thing here seems to be parents not wanting their child taught something, which I have concerns over, on the other hand if parents think they can do a better job of teaching their children then they obviously should be allowed to pull their children out of public education. But personally I don't see how pulling children out of education because you don't want them taught something does anything but create a climate of ignorance.

 

Take race and a lesson from the history of the deep south in the US as a point of fact; should we allow parents to pull their children out of school because they would be in a class with a African American(s)? I think the answer has to be emphatically no, you do not end racial segregation by allowing it to continue. Similarly you will keep a society divided so long as you refuse to integrate with those different to you, be that on race or an intellectual level.

 

Pulling children out of education because you don't want them to be taught something seems indicative of wrapping children up in both cotton wool and an intellectual buble. It would seem to me that you will be left with is individuals who are unable to function with those with different viewpoints to themselves.

 

To be frank, given this seems to be an issue with a large proportion of "Evangelical Christians", I would observe that they are unable to cope with other Christians (or indeed non-Christians) who disagree with them. Frequently demonising the individual in opposition to them instead of confronting the argument they are faced with. In doing so they fail to follow Edward R. Murrow's observation that; "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty". It is questionable as if to they are taking a loving course in slandering the opposition. Note; some of the most famous young earth creationists do this by saying their is a conspiracy on the part of "secular scientists" who are "lying" to allow their world view and manipulate others.

 

Furthermore, you point also begs an additional question; should we leave children in the hands of abusive parents because the parents think they know better than the government. If parents wish to homeschool their kids I think that is fine; however I do think there are certain things on the curriculum which should be taught; evolution being one of them.

 

So a theory's popularity should decide whether it's taught?

 

Yes, you cannot counter a theory unless you know it is incorrect; as such if a theory is both popular and incorrect, to challenge it you would need to understand the theory first. However given that it seems entirely fool-hardy to pretend a popular theory doesn't exist and to stick you fingers in your hears and hum, does nothing to change the notion that the theory is popular and prevalent. As such if people are wishing to disprove evolution it would seem to me, you would need to be familiar with the theory before you could disprove it; in my experience most of those in opposition to evolution have little knowledge of the evidence for it. Which only makes me think they have made a decision based on ignorance and what others have told them, rather than them investigating for themselves.

[Pho3nix]

So a theory's popularity should decide whether it's taught?

I would say that the validity of said scientific theory should decide it, as Achilles has pointed out numerous times it is important to make the distinction between theory and scientific theory.

 

Personally, I find the aspect of teaching creationism to kids as both disturbing and sad as we live in the 21st-century, and even though there's an obligation to include both evolution and creationism in the curriculum you can rest assured that the parent(s) are quick to point out which of these two is the correct one to believe in, off the record of course. I can only imagine what their kids turn out to be.

[Working Class Hero]

Which is why they have the option of homeschooling, however I'm deeply uncomfortable with certain theories not being taught because it disagrees with a parents ideological stand point.

Pulling children out of education because you don't want them to be taught something seems indicative of wrapping children up in both cotton wool and an intellectual buble. It would seem to me that you will be left with is individuals who are unable to function with those with different viewpoints to themselves.

I do want to point out that not learning about evolution will not make someone 'unable to function with those with different viewpoints.' Sure, they won't learn about Darwin and natural selection, but that won't impair their social skills.

To turn it around, what about people who have never opened a Bible or gone to Church? Are they incapable of talking to Christians?

Furthermore, you point also begs an additional question; should we leave children in the hands of abusive parents because the parents think they know better than the government

Of course not.

To be frank, given this seems to be an issue with a large proportion of "Evangelical Christians", I would observe that they are unable to cope with other Christians (or indeed non-Christians) who disagree with them.

I know a few people that I would consider Evangelical Christians and I would say that most can cope with a serious discussion about evolution. They just don't know as much about it, but they don't plug their ears and wail for you stop.

 

I would say that the validity of said scientific theory should decide it, as Achilles has pointed out numerous times it is important to make the distinction between theory and scientific theory.

Eh, where's the science for evolution? There's only one fossil that might be a product of evolution: archaeopteryx.

If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation.-Phillip Johnson

[jonathan7]

I do want to point out that not learning about evolution will not make someone 'unable to function with those with different viewpoints.' Sure, they won't learn about Darwin and natural selection, but that won't impair their social skills.

 

I think you missed my inference, it isn't just the issue of evolution but moves beyond that, in my experience those that would remove their kids from school because of "evolution" will also, avoid teaching their kids a wide variety of subject matter which they don't agree with.

 

To turn it around, what about people who have never opened a Bible or gone to Church? Are they incapable of talking to Christians?

 

It is surely the Christians job to integrate with the culture surrounding them? Jesus went out and met with people, he didn't wait for them to come to him? That said I do think people being much more familiar with religions of all kinds would do much more to promote understanding between different groups of people.

 

I know a few people that I would consider Evangelical Christians and I would say that most can cope with a serious discussion about evolution. They just don't know as much about it, but they don't plug their ears and wail for you stop.

 

Its not so much an ability to discuss the matter as work with other Christians who disagree with them. Which more than often in my expierience they are not capable of. Witness Answers in Genesis, Statement of Faith, which requires you believe a whole load of things they do (i.e. young earth etc). It divides, rather than unites the Church and concentrates energies on matters that don't ultimately matter. It also seems to me they key difference being my beliefs do not require them to believe what I believe; however their beliefs do require me to believe what they do. However comprehension is not a pre-requisite of co-operation.

 

If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation.-Phillip Johnson

 

I find it highly curious that you quote a man who's qualification is in English Literature rather than a scientist, as means of 'disproving' evolution. There are good arguments against Dawkins Blind Watchmaker argument, Johnson has produced none of them however.

[Te Darasuum Mandalor]

here is a link to an article I found on the internet which relates to the conversation. I used this curriculem for a while then dropped out because it was too evangelicle in my opinion. (Though I am Christian, I am not a creationist or young earth theorist or whatever they're called)

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588260,00.html

[Pho3nix]

Eh, where's the science for evolution? There's only one fossil that might be a product of evolution: archaeopteryx.

If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation.-Phillip Johnson

You don't know what you're talking about. There is clear empirical evidence for evolution, whether you believe in creationism, young-earth theory or evolution "aided" by [X] god is a matter of faith, not science.

 

Oh, and good job citing some AIDS denier who's statements have been refuted numerous times by the scientific community.

[Working Class Hero]

You don't know what you're talking about. There is clear empirical evidence for evolution, whether you believe in creationism, young-earth theory or evolution "aided" by [X] god is a matter of faith, not science.

There is empirical evidence for microevolution, but not macroevolution. Has there ever been an empirical case of one species turning into another? No.

[True_Avery]

There is empirical evidence for microevolution, but not macroevolution. Has there ever been an empirical case of one species turning into another? No.

Microevolution and macroevolution are, essentially, the same thing. However they are very different in the respect that macroevolution extends over many generations and can eventually lead to another species.

 

Yes, there is proof of macroevolution. Obviously we do not have the time to sit around and wait thousands or millions of years to watch it happen, so we must look elsewhere. Summation is a great example. Scientists from different fields (such as biology, paleontology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, anthropology, etc.) can take different species of animals and arrange them on a phylogenetic tree (tree of life). Every time, from all different fields, independently, all of the trees of life will match...EXACTLY. We also have millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA.

 

Specifically regarding humans, Chromosome 2 proves that we do in fact share a common ancestor with the Great Apes. All of the Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Where did that pair go? We believed that a chromosome had gotten fused, but we weren't sure. If there was no fused chromosome, then evolution had a huge problem. Then we found Chromosome 2. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. Each chromosome has two telomeres and one centromere. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres (one should be inactive). Guess what...we found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we still belong in the family of Great Apes.

 

On a side note, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) exist in DNA. They are essentially viruses that are "good," and they exchange information. If they land on a body cell of an organism, their information is forever lost. However if they land on a sperm or an egg, their information will be passed to that organism's offspring. Chimpanzees and humans have over 60 ERVs in the exact same places in our genome. The chances of even one ERV landing in the same spot in our genomes (if we weren't related) is .00000000016% (since our genome is about 3 billion base pairs long). Think of the likelihood that over 60 ERVs would land in the exact same spots.

 

Things to study to improve your understanding:

 

- Summation

- Atavisms

- ERVs

- Vestigial Structures

- Pseudogenes (relates to atavisms)

- Speciation (very important)

- Allele Frequencies

- Genetic Drift

[Working Class Hero]

Every time, from all different fields, independently, all of the trees of life will match...EXACTLY.

Completely untrue.

 

We also have millions of fossils to show transitions

There are millions of fossils, but all are in their modern form. There are no transition form fossils.

 

Specifically regarding humans, Chromosome 2..

I honestly cannot see how this proves or disproves evolution.

 

On a side note, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) exist in DNA. They are essentially viruses that are "good," and they exchange information. If they land on a body cell of an organism, their information is forever lost. However if they land on a sperm or an egg, their information will be passed to that organism's offspring. Chimpanzees and humans have over 60 ERVs in the exact same places in our genome. The chances of even one ERV landing in the same spot in our genomes (if we weren't related) is .00000000016% (since our genome is about 3 billion base pairs long). Think of the likelihood that over 60 ERVs would land in the exact same spots

ERVs are terminally repeating viruses. As they make up only 1% of our genome, the odds that humans and chimps got them independently are not nearly as astronomical as you said, because ERVs are replicating viruses.

[True_Avery]

Completely untrue.

Summation and the "Tree of Life".

 

Part 2) Summation

 

Part 1) mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion, Chromosome 2

 

Embryology:

 

Genetic Road Map:

 

There are millions of fossils, but all are in their modern form. There are no transition form fossils.

You need to learn what constitutes transition fossils scientifically.

 

What has to be made clear is that you -cannot- have it one way. Macroevolution is extended microevolution over a long time period. Micro is Reductionist, and Macro is Holistic. Essentially, Micro is the study of the small parts and fundamentals of evolution while macro is the study of how the system works as a whole over time. It is much like saying that all the individual organs, cells, and so on in a human body work... but there is no proof for the human body existing.

 

Think of it basically like this: Put a father, a son, and the son's son in a line. The son is the transitional fossil. The chances of every animal that ever lived and every step of every direction being fossilized in an easy to find location for humans to dig up shows an ignorance of the fossilization process and paleontology.

 

Basically, the chances of a complete fossil recording existing under our feet is astronomically low considering the conditions that must be met for fossilization. If it was as high as you seem to want it to be, we could throw a shovel down anywhere and find a dinosaur, human skeleton, whatever perfectly preserved.

 

Here, watch this:

 

Essentially, there are transitional fossils. What you are asking for is a fallacy. You want proof for evolution, we give it. But, what we give isn't good enough, so we dig deeper. Well, now the pieces just aren't close enough for you. No matter how close the pieces get, there will always been enough of a space for people to point out when it is just physically impossible to fill the entire tree. However, we do not need every inch filled because we have more transition fossils than was ever theorized existed. Quite frankly, you're just holding your eyes and ears shut and screaming as loud as you can while we have more evidence on the table then we, honestly, actually ever needed. Every transition fossil we have found within the last 30 years has done little but confirm what we already know.

 

It is like asking me to prove the existence and microevolution of human beings by digging up every human who ever died ever in perfect form. It just is not feasible, nor needed.

 

If you care about the topic at all and are willing to endure some somewhat passive aggressive shots, then watch these videos before responding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&feature=related

&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0&feature=related

 

Yes, it is a lot of video but bear with it.

 

And, after those, here are just a few of thousands of links I could give you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/Ifossil_ev.shtml

 

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6858/phylogenictreetf8.jpg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GViS6Z2Y7L0

 

Start there. If you are truly bringing up the point to be educated, then you'll research it yourself and give it the time of day.

 

I honestly cannot see how this proves or disproves evolution.

Chromosome 2 is a very interesting subject.

 

Part 1) mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion, Chromosome 2

 

Things to study to improve your understanding:

 

- Summation

- Atavisms

- ERVs

- Vestigial Structures

- Pseudogenes (relates to atavisms)

- Speciation (very important)

- Allele Frequencies

- Genetic Drift

 

ERVs are terminally repeating viruses. As they make up only 1% of our genome, the odds that humans and chimps got them independently are not nearly as astronomical as you said, because ERVs are replicating viruses.

See Above. And yes, it is just as astronomical as I said because that is the math. It is about the relation to where the ERVs land on the genome and in what numbers; not how much they replicate. The fact they make up about only 1% of the genome actually makes where they land that much more important.

 

If you want to talk about it more, make a Kavar's Corner Hot Topic Thread since we're going way off topic. I will not respond to another evolution post in this thread, and would recommend the same to everyone. I would also request you give my links the time of day before posting. If not, then its not my job to educate you on something you clearly aren't interested in enough to learn on your own, and would request you drop the topic and let the thread resume its original course.

 

Good day.

[Darth InSidious]

Two things.

 

1. St. Augustine of Hippo's own words upon the subject of Genesis; here, two relevant extracts:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

 

-Both from De Genesi ad Litteram

 

2. Archaeological evidence that the world is much, much older than 6000 years (a number of, I should add, no Biblical basis, let alone scientific):

 

In contrast to the Upper Palaeolithic Period, many Late Palaeolithic sites have been found in Upper Egyt, dating between 21,000 and 12,000 BP.

...

Among the different groups, the Fakhurian (21,000-19,500 BP) and the Kubbaniyan (19000-17000 BP) are the oldest.

...

Four major tool classes are well represented in the Fakhurian. Backed bladelets, some with Ouchtata retouch are the most frequent...

(Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I Shaw, 2000: pp. 26-27)

 

There are man-made tools dating to the Lower Palaeolithic - c. 400,000-300,000 years ago! (cf: Oxford History... p.19), and continuous signs of human, or near-human (homo erectus, etc.) inhabitation and useage of tools from this date up until the beginning of history (c.3200 BC). There is evidence of hunter-gatherers, and of primitive habitation from at least as early as 21,000 BP - in Egypt alone.

 

And before you rant about the use of BP (Before Present, i.e., dated from January 1, 1950), this system was chosen purely for the purposes of carbon-14 dating - see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present.

 

As a notice, I will not be further engaging in this.... 'debate'. I have neither the time nor the energy at present to waste on overturning fundamentally flawed epistemology, philosophy, theology, and ecclesiology.

[Bimmerman]

I have great trouble taking you seriously when you start spouting your unqualified views on biology and science. Many biologists who are PHDs believe in God. I actually know a bio teacher at college who does. Don't say that every 'qualified professional' believes the same thing. You insult the entire field.

 

Point out where I said that to support evolution means you cannot believe in God. Go on, point.

 

That's right, I didn't. Science isn't faith, and I know many many college professors (probably more than you do) who believe in God and utterly support Evolution. Your point fails.

 

Many scientists believe things happen a different way-- that is what scientific debate is all about. Same as Protestantism, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Judaism, Islam.....they're all different points of view on the same basic subject matter. Scientists study things to learn whether their hunches and beliefs are correct or not. Where do I say they all believe religiously in the theory of evolution? You do realize there are many different theories of evolution, yes? If everyone believed the same thing exactly there would be no need for further research into alternatives. This doesn't happen, so I'm not exactly sure where you think I said it does. All credible biology professors and scientists remotely involved in that field take one of the various theories of evolution to be correct. If they don't, and take the "God did it, discussion over, burn the heretic" approach, they get laughed at except by similarly minded people, who tend to be closed minded fundamentalists. Point fail x2

 

I'm not super knowledgeable on biology, though I am not pretending to be (unlike you, as per your posts on the subject). I am, however, extremely intimately knowledgeable on science and proper scientific procedure. I have, however, researched this subject enough to know what I am talking about, to know the bits I do not understand, and the issues with the theory of evolution. Have you? Point fail x3.

 

In the parents opinion it's far better to say God did it. What makes your opinion better than theirs?

 

Because, frankly, they're uneducated. I'm all for using evolution as a tool to explain how God may have/not created things. Saying he did it without even bringing up the contradictory (and vastly more proven) theory of evolution is just ignorant and foolish. Parents whose concept of science comes from high school or at best introductory college wash-out classes are not qualified to teach the subject in any capacity, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof in a higher power.

 

Before I get flamed for that statement, I say vastly more proven because go ahead and try to prove God has ever done anything scientifically and empirically without quoting the many-times-translated-and-retranslated Bible. You can prove evolution happens on a small scale in a standardized laboratory setting, with repeatable outcomes that any equally knowledgeable scientist can reproduce. Hence, evolution is vastly more proven than "God did it, argument over, my mind is closed to all further discussion."

 

I'm not a cynic, nor annoyed by the fundamentalist view.....of course not.....

 

Do note that I'm not saying religion = bad, nor that science = all that is wonderful, just that fundamentalist thought is detrimental to scientific progress. The Catholic Church's official stance on the matter is that Evolution is God's mechanism for bringing the world into being. Many Protestant branches of Christianity do as well. Evangelicals (i.e. fundamentalists) don't. Which is correct? Who knows? Who cares?

 

How this turned into an evolution vs creation thread I have no idea.