Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[Polymath257]

Lol, they don't need fantasy theories to survive in the world.

True, but to thrive can require some basic knowledge that the current theories encompass.

I didn't deny change BTW, I just understand it in a different concept.
And I already told you they took some classes elsewhere to cover what we couldn't teach.

Well, that at least is good.

Because it can't be repeated or verified. The evidence is shakey at best. It's not science unless it can be demonstrated. And don't give me the nonsense about bacteria getting stronger to try and prove molecules to man evolution... it's laughable.

It is possible to demonstrate by means that are not in a lab. For example, we know of the processes that stars go through, but cannot repeat them because they take millions to billions of years.

The changes in bacteria show that mutations and selection can give new abilities. it alone doesn't prove the 'molecules to man' evolution, but it does give a critical piece of information concerning one system.

What demonstrates the 'molecules to man' evolution is the combination of the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence, and the comparative anatomy evidence. We *know* the species change significantly over geological time scales. That *has* been demonstrated. In fact, it was demonstrated before Darwin did his work. Darwin address the question of 'how' because the question of 'whether' had already been answered.

 

[Polymath257]

Change over time doesn't equal a ape becoming human or a fish becoming a mammal.

But when you look at the evidence of change over time, you realize that large scale changes do happen over geological time periods. The amount of change required to go from ancestral apes to modern humans isn't actually that much. That was a relatively small amount of change and happened over only a few million years. The evolution from fish (specific lines of fish) to mammals took considerably longer and had many interesting intermediate stages. But, again, we have the fossil records of those changes.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But when you look at the evidence of change over time, you realize that large scale changes do happen over geological time periods. The amount of change required to go from ancestral apes to modern humans isn't actually that much. That was a relatively small amount of change and happened over only a few million years. The evolution from fish (specific lines of fish) to mammals took considerably longer and had many interesting intermediate stages. But, again, we have the fossil records of those changes.

No you don't. You have a bunch of extinct kinds of fish and mammals bones.
Time isn't magic. It can not do the impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

No you don't. You have a bunch of extinct kinds of fish and mammals bones.
Time isn't magic. It can not do the impossible.

Yes, we do. Those extinct fish, reptiles, and mammals show a sequence of changes from the fish to the mammals.

Time doesn't do the impossible, but evolution isn't impossible. In fact, it is almost inevitable given mutations and differential survival.

 

[McBell]

That's not the question.

Your fear of answering is most interesting.

The question is whether you have the right to teach your kids or whether you are going to give that right to others.

I have no idea where you are that does not allow parents to teach their children.
Here in my neck of the woods, most parents are not much interested in teaching their own children, but are much more concerned with what those who are willing to teach their children are teaching.
BUt not concerned enough to teach their children themselves.

And whatever philosophy you embrace, even if you think it's neutral, will be absorbed by your kids.

And?
Perhaps this is what those who are not interested in teaching their own children are relying on...?

And BTW, there's no such thing as a neutral philopophy. You WILL indoctrinate them one way or another.

Not sure what definition of the word "indoctrinate" you are using...

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, we do. Those extinct fish, reptiles, and mammals show a sequence of changes from the fish to the mammals.

No, you have layers that are assumed to represent time periods...

 

[Polymath257]

No, you have layers that are assumed to represent time periods...

Not an assumption: a deduction given things like deposition rates and various dating techniques, all of which give consistent answers.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, they don't need fantasy theories to survive in the world.

We don't need to know many things we know in order to survive. But yet, we know them, and it is good to learn them.

You call the scientific theories 'fantasy', but I suspect the only reason you do so is because they contradict your religious views. Those scientific theories that do not contradict your religion are, I suspect, just fine with you.

The point is that it is possible to learn things about the past using the laws of physics, chemistry etc in the present. We can understand how conditions were different in the past and adjust our models to that information.

You don't get to do science by denying the evidence. ALL the evidence. From the nature of radioactive decay (which is very well understood), to the details of genetics (which show the relations between species), to the fossil record (which shows what sorts of things were alive at different times), to the evidence *against* alternative explanations (no global flood, Lamarckian evolution isn't how things happen, etc).

The goal is *always* to have testable ideas. If they are wrong, there should be some observation (or sequence of observations) that show they are wrong. Any theory that doesn't have that property is justifiably ignored. Those that do, and repeatedly pass those tests, are granted the exalted status of 'scientific theory'.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Cripes, just about 2 pages into this discussion then called it quits as I already found so, so much to respond to, so let's go:

Not molecules to man evolution. Call it what you want, but you can't get there from an organism simply adapting with the DNA information it already contains. That's like saying if I turn the lights off in one room in my house, so my electric bill will be less (a benefit to me) that explains how the house built itself.

You continue to conflate Abiogensis (as well as every other science you find threatening) under the "Evolution" umbrella; but that is something you must do in order to maintain your narrative.

Are you ok with them being indoctrinated with whatever the government wants to feed them?

No.

I am reminded of a picture I can't seem to paste in here of a school classroom with the Gay Pride and Black Lives Matter flags displayed.

I am not okay with this, though I mostly agree with the sentiments. School is not the place where we teach values; it is where we teach knowledge. There is a difference.

I once knew a child who, in the 3rd grade, was "taught" by her teacher the ongoing political situation during the Trump election. While I fully support the idea of teaching children early to be politically aware and active, I just got the overall impression that this child was being influenced to favor the Democratic platform over the other; and her mind is very impressionable. I, myself, lean left, so I agreed with what this child was telling me; I simply questioned and distrusted I questioned it because I suspect that she was being indoctrinated rather than educated.

What's the difference?

The difference is, "Indoctrination" implies convincing someone of a given viewpoint and manipulate them into accepting that viewpoint, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

"The earth is 6000 years old" is a statement that is held to in spite of evidence to the contrary, and teaching each other that, is indoctrinating them. "Evolution happened" is a statement that is held with support of an incredible amount of evidence, and teaching what is supported by evidence is not indoctrination.

Personally, I am of the mind that we should not indoctrinate them at them all.

Yessss!

I'd much rather they be educated by a system where the topics are chosen by professionals instead of local school boards. And I'd much prefer that to having the topics be chosen by religious institutions.

Yessss!

One of the BIG problems of the educational system in the US is that the local school boards have way too much power to overrule the experts. WAY too much education is simply avoided because it might offend some parents with nutty viewpoints.

Agreed. And it surpasses religious dogma into politicized dogma as well. We teach our children in our schools that Columbus "sailed the ocean blue" to "prove the earth was round" and we should not be teaching them that, because it's not true. We teach our children in our schools that the first Thanksgiving was a time of joy and celebration between the Natives and the Settlers; but we should not be teaching them that because it was not true (it was actually a very tense event filled with mistrust under the threat of eruption into violence). I could add much more to this list.

That's not the question. The question is whether you have the right to teach your kids or whether you are going to give that right to others.

How can you teach anyone knowledge which you, yourself, do not possess?

You WILL indoctrinate them one way or another.

No. Indoctrination is teaching a given viewpoint and manipulation to hold to that viewpoint in spite of evidence to the contrary. Children will inevitably be biased based upon the biases held by the educator; but not necessarily "indoctrinated".

Well we are what? Twenty years past sequencing the human genome and we still know next to nothing about it.

This is laughable.

Again, random mutations can only do so much. Nature doesn't select anything, that's a myth. The very term "natural selection" suggests someone is selecting. DNA is much too complex to have randomly developed on its own. It's actually absurd to think it's even possible.

Wait. You think Natural Selection is nature "selecting" which random mutations to employ and which ones to reject!? No wonder you're so confused.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because it can't be repeated or verified. The evidence is shakey at best. It's not science unless it can be demonstrated. And don't give me the nonsense about bacteria getting stronger to try and prove molecules to man evolution... it's laughable.

LOL

FYI, scientists don't need to repeat an event before they can study it or draw any conclusions about it. For example, forensic scientists don't need to recreate a murder before they can name a suspect, archaeologists don't need to re-stage a war before they can say who fought in it, and cosmologists don't need to make a galaxy before they can draw conclusions about its history.

 

[Wildswanderer]

LOL

FYI, scientists don't need to repeat an event before they can study it or draw any conclusions about it. For example, forensic scientists don't need to recreate a murder before they can name a suspect, archaeologists don't need to re-stage a war before they can say who fought in it, and cosmologists don't need to make a galaxy before they can draw conclusions about its history.

I know enough about archaeology and the study of the past to know that historians make huge mistakes about what was really going on, based on the evidence. They actually got it wrong when they were watching natives perform certain tasks. That's why experimental archaeology, where you actually do a certain skill is so important. And you want me to believe they look at some old bones and get the history correct? Please!

 

[Wildswanderer]

"The earth is 6000 years old" is a statement that is held to in spite of evidence to the contrary, and teaching each other that, is indoctrinating them. "Evolution happened" is a statement that is held with support of an incredible amount of evidence, and teaching what is supported by evidence is not indoctrination.

But, it's not just "evolution happened". It's the whole thing from a single cell organism to man happened. That is what is taught. And it's not even close to fact.

 

[Polymath257]

But, it's not just "evolution happened". It's the whole thing from a single cell organism to man happened. That is what is taught. And it's not even close to fact.

If you go back 2 billion years, only single celled organisms existed.

Then multicellular organisms appeared. After that, vertebrates appeared. After that, fish, then reptiles, then mammals appeared. Much later, primates appeared, then hominids, then modern humans.

Which part of that isn't factual?

 

[Jose Fly]

I know enough about archaeology and the study of the past to know that historians make huge mistakes about what was really going on, based on the evidence. They actually got it wrong when they were watching natives perform certain tasks. That's why experimental archaeology, where you actually do a certain skill is so important. And you want me to believe they look at some old bones and get the history correct? Please!

So, you're about what.....15, 16 years old? That's the only reason I can think of for such a juvenile reply. I mean....sometimes archaeologists have been wrong, therefore all scientists in all fields must recreate every event they study?

 

[metis]

Change over time doesn't equal a ape becoming human or a fish becoming a mammal.

When we look back at the early ape line, there were no human remains that have ever shown up; and when we look at the early species of fish, there are no mammals that have ever shown up. Since this is the case, how does one explain that?

The reality is that the ToE explains this process in a very logical manner that's based on evidence, thus not hearsay.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When we look back at the early ape line, there were no human remains that have ever shown up; and when we look at the early species of fish, there are no mammals that have ever shown up. Since this is the case, how does one explain that?

The reality is that the ToE explains this process in a very logical manner that's based on evidence, thus not hearsay.

One explains that by noting that indeed there have been human bones found along with ape bones plenty. I think you need to do some research. In fact, some finds are likely actually ape and human bones mixed, but that would not fix the paradigm so, we are supposed to ignore that possibility.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, you're about what.....15, 16 years old? That's the only reason I can think of for such a juvenile reply. I mean....sometimes archaeologists have been wrong, therefore all scientists in all fields must recreate every event they study?

I'm over 50 and I say it because I've seen enough to know the mistakes are real. Unless you can recreate the event you are just guessing essentially. Look, I do a fair amount of primitive skills stuff. It makes me very skeptical about the so-called experts that study this stuff by the book. I think we have a lot of educated morons out there that think they know a lot, but actually just parrot what a professor said in a classroom.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you go back 2 billion years, only single celled organisms existed.

Then multicellular organisms appeared. After that, vertebrates appeared. After that, fish, then reptiles, then mammals appeared. Much later, primates appeared, then hominids, then modern humans.

Which part of that isn't factual?

Actually, there are plenty of out-of-place fossils. They are conveniently thought to have eroded out of an old formation and be redeposited in a younger formation.

Clam kinds of fossils occur all throughout Earth’s sedimentary layers, frequently mixed with dinosaurs, and the fossil clams look like today’s clams.

Of course, the real question is how the layers were really deposited. And if the time frames are even close to what is claimed.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But, it's not just "evolution happened". It's the whole thing from a single cell organism to man happened. That is what is taught. And it's not even close to fact.

This is called "Incredulity"; which means, "failure to believe". I am atheist because of my incredulity. Me failing to believe in a god has no bearing on whether or not that god is real. My disbelief does not make the god not real. Your incredulity in regards to single cell organisms to man has no bearing, whatsoever, on whether or not it is true. What you fail to present is compelling evidence to make your case that man did not evolve from single celled organisms. Bring that compelling evidence, and you will become a household name, like Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein and Newton.

Actually, there are plenty of out-of-place fossils. They are conveniently thought to have eroded out of an old formation and be redeposited in a younger formation.

Conveniently thought to have!? Handwaving things away with pat explanations is not how science works. But it is how religion works.

 

[metis]

One explains that by noting that indeed there have been human bones found along with ape bones plenty.

Not prior to 6 million years b.p.

In fact, some finds are likely actually ape and human bones mixed, but that would not fix the paradigm so, we are supposed to ignore that possibility.

Please provide evidence for this, and also explain what you mean by "mixed"?

. I think you need to do some research.

I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught that subject for 30 years, and that included both physical and cultural anthropology. So, maybe get over your condescending arrogance, OK.