Nerd Passions Forum





STEP 1) Click Into Any Category - STEP 2) Click NEW TOPIC - STEP 3) Post! It's that simple!
Members with accounts over 24 hours old are encouraged to click into the Introduction Area category to say hello!
Have fun!





Ban evolution in schools

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nerd Passions Forum index -> Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
former member default image - bird flying away
alikakadri
(deleted)









Posted:     Post subject:

simple question:


if we don't teach mistakes and erroneous information, and I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, then how is there ever going to be someone to come along, like you just did, and question that knowledge?
Unless of course you propose that we teach doubt and the need to research this individually...?

And that's IF you think that what you're taught in school is the truth as opposed to... say... (and again here i'm not saying my own view on this matter but really just asking the question) brainwashing to keep us all tame sheep-like creatures while the tops, who know the real truth, have us eating out of their hands until we're led to work their fields and other such tasks they wouldn't dirty their hands with? Thus controlling all we learn and how much we learn to the best of their ability until someone rises to question that fed knowledge?

just wanted to point those out. They are valid questions that have yet to be considered

---------------------------------------------------------------


now for my view:

it's a small novel so I won't mind if you don't read, the majority of my point was made above anyway, the rest is just adding flesh to the bone, so-to-speak...


I think BLKraven is right when she says

blkraven wrote: Im going to be real.....frankly i think people should hear both and make up their mind...

So why isn't it that way? Why are we pushed forward to one theory-that-seems-plausible-from-observations more than the other?

blkraven wrote: the proablity of all this coming by chance is equal to be putting the componet of a phone is a jar shaking it for years and it coming out right ( it isnt going to happen so stop shaking)
There are too many differences between species to have evolved considering the amount of time given by sciencetist.
And if this is true..WHERE ARE THE ALIENS

just how is that "by chance"? There's still someone putting the phone in the jar and shaking... I do understand that finding an accidental example is difficult at this point.

roboempath wrote: Lets face it - the original theory - that fossil bones *prove* genetic mutation - is compeltely and thoroughly discredited. Put the bones of a chihuahua next to abeagle next to a labrador next to a great dane. Oh look - a fossil record of evolution - except that they are all the same species!

I think it was proven not by fossils but by the fact that, regardless of the species with a skeleton/vertebrae out skeletons are so similar on a basic level (bat wings have 5 "fingers", cats and dogs have 5 "fingers/toes" although they have a tail and we only have the "tail bone", giraffes have the same number of neck bones/vertebrae as humans, even dolphins have very similar skeletons), with very small variations. The skull variations being the most visible on all mammals and the main difference.

Plus to say it's only proven with fossils is to forget about the DNA shared and all of the other observations made that lead to the theory.

so you disprove very little if you put a chihuahua's bones next to a great dane's. The chihuahua was selected genetically **by humans** through a mutation based on in-breeding for certain traits. So was the great dane, as opposed to a wolf, which is the same animal as a chihuahua or great dane, by the way, but the wolf hasn't been in-bred and then bred selectively by a different species deciding to pick those specific traits it liked into future generations. It has nothing to do with natural evolution (this is proven by russian research on silver foxes that's been on-going where they only allow the friendly fox pups to grow to breed the next generation. They've produced a large number of human-loving foxes and the mutations that followed the in-breeding has changes their look significantly. I would also point out that they did the reverse research as well, allowing the more fearful and wild to breed in a different place which led to a much wilder and human-hating set of foxes).
But I will direct you to my other post on the question of "evolution" in another part of the nerd passions forum. A post I don't want to copy here. The topic IS "Evolution" and asks if humans are still evolving.

For the theory of creation, they don't need to teach it as science, it's taught as religion, so it IS being taught (?!?) under so many aspects... if one just decides to study theology then they will learn more than one. It's just that most people decide to stick to the point of view they've always been taught and not bother with any other point of view. Although some people do change religion when offered the choice of one that might fit their experiences better.
Maybe it's just me, but that seems the case with science as well...

so call it what you want. it's taught as something, if not as science/fact.

zephron_PREV wrote: And "are you pissed" (pissed means drunk in the uk.)
This bodes well for discusions, talk of aliens, hmmm, where they mentioned in the bible, or where you on about the fossil remains of these aliens to prove/disprove evolution?

isn't a theory a belief that is more or less proven by some observation?

so disprove the theory that we're not alone in the universe and that there aren't other species/beings out there on other planets...
truth is you can't, you can only believe in there being or not being aliens out there until we can prove otherwise.

In the meantime I will point out that it's a valid theory based on many points (not the least of which is that if there's life on one planet then wouldn't it be accurate to say that whatever began said life on this planet could also have happened on other planets? Why would this be impossible? Rare, maybe, but impossible? I think not).

Attacking blkraven for her adding them to the pot doesn't add to this conversation, it's just attacking her beliefs or her theory, isn't it?
And isn't calling her a drunk just passing judgement because she disagrees with you?

it's my belief that attacks have no place in a fact vs fact discussion and takes away from the discussion itself

sweetsunrise wrote: As a parent I can tell you I would object strongly to anyone teaching anything other than current scientific theory of the origins of life on this planet. I want her to learn creation stories of as many religions as possible but NOT in science class!

Your statement does make sense on the side where if creation cannot be proven/supported by fact than it's just belief and has no place in science. Science is fact-based and can be proven through experiments and observations. Creation, as of yet, cannot be proven as stated and leaves too many unanswered questions.
If that were to change in the future, then and only then would it have a place in science fact-based/fact-supported teachings?

freakingducks wrote: `My dear friends, you've just witnessed the closest thing to a peer-reviewed journal that creationism has! A few people getting together on an insulated forum and talking about how "stupid" evolution is. I dare say, bald assertions do not count as evidence. Also, the more fervently you speak, does not imply more validity to what you say. The level of deception that goes into ID and Creationism should be evidence enough of what evolution denial is really about.

the same can be said about all you've said. I did not, for one, see you support your statements with much fact on proving or disproving evolution or, for that matter, providing scientific proof that any other theory is valid enough to replace evolution in school taught science.

and again with the attack posts?

Aren't we all here to learn from each other and have intelligent, not emotional (fights), conversations?

bronnblackwater wrote: `I like the idea of banning evolution in schools; that is, if anyone in school is evolving, or at the very least exhibiting signs of mutation, we put them on suspension until we can be sure they're still human and not some threat to the rest of the school populace.

lol okay, so there's always room for a little humor in a serious/heavy conversation


neurotic wrote: In regards to 'If evolution is true why are there still monkeys?'. Because we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor who is no longer around because it has evolved into other species.

agreed. This does, however, not apply to some species:

chihuahuas and great danes and wolves are genetically the same animal. They are being forced to evolved differently because of human meddling.
It also does not apply to cats and rabbits which are the same animal (although this is not due to human meddling but some natural occurrence).

As proven by the fact that they can breed together and their offspring CAN have offspring of their own, as opposed to the following mating's:

horses/donkeys = mules, which are sterile
lions/tigers = ligers or tigons (depending on what species is the male vs the female) which are sterile

or so I gather. If other things such as DNA are then found to disprove my statement, then so be it. Until then I stand by my statement.


trurlx wrote: `Don't argue with fools - it does not make them smarter, but it might make you dumber

Every time I see that old evolution debate come up I cringe inwardly. I guess this is the modern equivalent of witch-burning and I guess I should be glad that these days the Inquisition does not hunt me down (I would be a prime target, I guess what with all the science degrees and all) but still, this stuff makes me a sad panda.

-Trurlx

exactly, this is why one asks questions about what is said and offers the chance to get people to think carefully about their own statements as opposed to "shooting it down" by just tossing counter-arguments into the pot and stirring


nerdlovingdork wrote: If someone doesn't understand a subject, yet discusses it as if they thoroughly understand it, that makes them a fool or a liar, right?

Like, I don't know... saying evolution is based on fossil records, or we haven't created the pre-cursors to life in laboratories, or that apes shouldn't be around if we evolved from them.

I don't talk about things I don't understand because I don't want to look like a fool. I guess I'm just weird like that...


you bring another valid point. Without good knowledge of something, isn't then one just pointing out opinions instead of facts? (and attack posts from what I can see above from some people)
thus turning the discussion into a battle of opinions instead of a real argument with supporting facts.

As a parent what I see in public schools as far as debating something or submitting a proper essay with supporting facts for your point of view is seriously lacking now from when I was in school. I was actually taught to support my ideas with supporting facts, instead of just throwing some opinions down and calling that an argument.

I wonder why the big change and letting kids get a poor to seriously lacking education? That might be another interesting debate, but one that diverges from this topic...







Back to top

spacer image
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Nerd Passions Forum index -> Science All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 2 of 1

 


© phpBB Limited






Home | Search

| Contact | Advertise on this Site

| Journalists, Bloggers & Press Inquiries

| Online Dating Directory Webmasters

| Terms | Privacy Policy

© 2004 - 2024