Private Schools and evolutionary theory

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
It is talking about the relationship of drought and moisture content on carbon in the soil. One of the other articles states that is a factor on the rate of carbon decay. Is there other data in the study? Yes, but it does not change the finding on carbon in the soil and the items in the soil. Parse away. Evidence has been given.
No, it doesn't.  Either you didn't read it, you don't understand it, or you are trying to be deceptive.
Or both.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/60#post_3531321
Pointing out the errors, deceit and lies of scientists is "attacking science"? Do you realize you just espoused the unthinking "take it by faith because they said so" attitude Christians are attacked with? The difference is the high priests of this doctrine are "scientists" and their doctrine is "theory". You have replaced faith in God(which our country was founded on) with faith in pseudo-science. Science says a scientific law must be measurable and repeatable. You say their own definition of science is attacking science. You don't have the slightest qualm or discomfort that these people are making stuff up whole-cloth? Read up on James Hutton-the man-not the scientist. You will find, and not from Christian sources, he said he made up the "millions and millions of years ago stuff", specifically to attack and refute the Biblical account of Creation. He made it up and so-called scientists today continue to regurgitate his lies. And devotees of evolution don't even take 1 damned second to question it. THAT is religious faith and fervor unprecedented even in most Christian communities.
You are putting words into my mouth and the highlighted questions were not rhetorical and they were not part of an argument. I was expecting an answer because there is an answer and I want you to answer it.

It isn't like scientists sit around making stuff up and then get that bull published in credible scientific journals. It doesn't happen because of peer reviews. Sure, the possibility exists that everyone who peer reviewed the thing missed an assumption or used faulty logic. If you have a better method, please let everyone know because your God isn't dropping answers from the sky.

Okay, when I learn an equation in class, I do not have the option to simply accept and use the equation. I have to learn how the equation was derived, its limitations, and assumptions. If I don't, then I am no longer doing science, I am doing calculations and what I am calculating is meaningless (at least to me).

Scientists are people. They have lives and feelings and personalities. They try to do good and make the world a better place (on the whole). They worked hard to get where they are and they deserve respect for it.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Darth, you ain't gonna let em talk smack about you like that are ya?
When did this discussion evolve into a heroin discussion?
Darth (i have a sudden desire to watch revenge of the nerds) tang
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
Ok, I only have a couple of minutes to type this out, so I have to be quick.

Mantis, I don't understand why you are so adamant that geologists follow Huttons theories. The Hutton theory of Deep Time is no longer valid - you're absolutely right. He DID get his time scales wrong. You're just reading information coming out of the wrong century. There are many more geologists and naturalists out there who have gotten closer and closer to actual geologic time scales which are widely accepted by the Scientific community. I see that you are also reading outdated information. This is called: Bad Research. Any sophmore level or higher college student can tell you a reason why you don't use articles and journals older than ten years... that information is more than likely outdated and other more solid theories have been built upon it with new, more credible information... which is how science proceeds onward. So, my suggestion is to get up to date and educate yourself in real science and it's principals before trying to disprove anything about it. Furthermore, I object to you putting the words Preist/Preacher/Pastor together with the word Scientist. They do not belong together, nor do Scientists preach anything - they only follow the scientific method and publish the results.


To add to the discussion, another Science classroom observation:


Yesterday, I had the opportunity to observe a 5th grade Science lecture at this same Christian Elementary School. The teacher, whom has the best intentions for the kids had the kids read from a textbook and then discuss the information. The textbook read like the Bible... with "hence forths and albeiths and hitherto" and other spooky words you would see in a Bible. The teacher then told all of these students that "All plants make seeds." It was definitive. I believe that this teacher truly thinks that all plants produce seeds. A better thing she could have said what "Most plants produce seeds." OK, strike one in my book. Then, after 15 minutes of reading the textbook she stops the science lesson to talk about how the "seed coat" dies so that the plant can have life, like Jesus died for our sins so that we may have life in him." And so for the next 15 minutes they talked about religion during the Science lecture. The whole lecture on Science was 30 minutes, and half of it was a Sunday school lesson. I was appalled.
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
I don't know why you're so appalled, Seth. You were at a christian private school after all. What else were you expecting?
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Why exactly are you being sent to a Christian school for academic training? I'm guessing you are attending a public school system so why are they sending you to observe at religious schools?


Quote:
Mantis, I don't understand why you are so adamant that geologists follow Huttons theories. The Hutton theory of Deep Time is no longer valid - you're absolutely right. He DID get his time scales wrong. You're just reading information coming out of the wrong century. There are many more geologists and naturalists out there who have gotten closer and closer to actual geologic time scales which are widely accepted by the Scientific community. I see that you are also reading outdated information. This is called: Bad Research. Any sophmore level or higher college student can tell you a reason why you don't use articles and journals older than ten years... that information is more than likely outdated and other more solid theories have been built upon it with new, more credible information... which is how science proceeds onward.
This here could be argued is the reason that scientific theories are not quite so reliable as we are asked to believe. Science does not change, only our understanding of it changes. And, as you point out here, that understanding is flawed or evolving. Perhaps that was mantis' point? Facts espoused 20 yrs ago, should still be facts today. But, they are not. LOL

At least with faith, there is no exclamation that a belief system is fact, except to the individual who believes.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
I have called schools in my district and asked them if they were open for observations. I went down a list of schools and the first ten said no. This christian school was the first one that has said yes, so i have been going back as often as they will let me to get my observations in for the class i am taking.
I have observed a other public schools as well. About half and half at this point. Its only this Chrisian school that i am having this discussion about. Its also the school that my wife wants to send our daughter to in a few years. So im doing my "homework" so to speak.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/80#post_3531359

This here could be argued is the reason that scientific theories are not quite so reliable as we are asked to believe. Science does not change, only our understanding of it changes. And, as you point out here, that understanding is flawed or evolving. Perhaps that was mantis' point? Facts espoused 20 yrs ago, should still be facts today. But, they are not. LOL

At least with faith, there is no exclamation that a belief system is fact, except to the individual who believes.

I think the facts are the same facts as years gone by. I believe it's the interpretation of these facts that changes over time.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member

I think the facts are the same facts as years gone by.  I believe it's the interpretation of these facts that changes over time.
Are you saying that the universe has held consistently the same theories of chemistry and physics as it always has and we are discovering and rediscovering the natural principles that have governed it aince the beginning of time? I would agree with that.
Darth, what do you mean, break?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
If all living things evolved from one organism, where does plant life turn into "animal" life. And what is the progression of evolvement (is that a word) of plant life?
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/80#post_3531376
If all living things evolved from one organism, where does plant life turn into "animal" life. And what is the progression of evolvement (is that a word) of plant life?

Evolution does not require all things (living or not) , in this case, living ogranisims to have evolved from a single organisim.
Nor does it require plant life and animal life have to "cross" evolve to each other or some other third organism.
All science requires is the assumption that what we have now came from whatever was before (evolved from) and will change into whatever is in the future (evolve).
Biological evolution is just a subset of that assumption of science and these type of questions do not disprove evolution. Because evolution is a basic assumption of science. And therefore cannot be "proven" by definition.
my .02
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Quote:Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396331/private-schools-and-evolutionary-theory/80#post_3531376
If all living things evolved from one organism, where does plant life turn into "animal" life. And what is the progression of evolvement (is that a word) of plant life?

Evolution does not require all things (living or not) , in this case, living ogranisims to have evolved from a single organisim.
Nor does it require plant life and animal life have to "cross" evolve to each other or some other third organism.
All science requires is the assumption that what we have now came from whatever was before (evolved from) and will change into whatever is in the future (evolve).
Biological evolution is just a subset of that assumption of science and these type of questions do not disprove evolution. Because evolution is a basic assumption of science. And therefore cannot be "proven" by definition.
my .02
Sort of like whether there is a god or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top