Should creationism be taught in public schools? (paycheck, generation, wisdom)

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Odd, since they taught nothing BUT creation theory up until 1925, at least. In fact, teaching evolution was considered illegal.

However, you have to be open to exploring all possibilities, or you might as well not teach anything at all. If you only want kids that will grow up parroting the "popular line" of the time, you won't get kids to think for themselves, or make up their own mind. Isn't that what we should be shooting for anyway? Kids that have critical thinking skills?

Children in elementary schools should not be taught theory with no proof.

Also until 1925, they didn't know a lot about the moon either, as well as segregation and other things going on at the time. Scientific knowledge grows over time. School books in 1925 didn't mention atoms at all either, because that was cutting edge science at the time.

I'm all for showing the theory of creation to college students, but only the proof, if any that there is some. The fact is there is 0, nill proof of creation. Lots of proof of evolution.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I can see why you might get tired of that argument ... but until it is answered effectively, you're likely to see it over and over again.



Me thinks you are confused. I THOROUGHLY REALIZE that man can't evolve from a banana .... that's not my theory, that's Darwin and your theory, that Man and Monkey evolved from a Banana or vice versa, which leaves the banana slightly short changed .... however many years you claim it took.




Don't tell me I'M confusing the argument ... I'm destroying the argument. But it's not a monumental task ... quite easy, actually.

Tell me ... what is being represented in this chart?



This is the age old standard "Chart of Human Evolution". Don't you remember being shown this in school ... the progression of your species ... from your primitive relatives? Does this depict separate evolutionary paths or does it depict a linear evolutionary progression?

As they say, a picture tells a thousand words ... in this case, the whole story. And the story is baloney. This entire idea of linear evolution from primitive to modern got stood on it's ear with the evidence of these beings coexisting.

Long after Darwin ... the evidence that Neanderthals and Humans coexisted is now a proven fact ... including DNA evidence of Neanderthal genes existing in those modern humans with Red Hair, proving that not only did the coexist, but they did a little something something more

This presented a problem for the Darwinists, because we were supposed to have evolved from Neanderthals, not mating with them, as depicted in the chart. So what to do? Come up with another theory that allows the evolutionary process and explain the non-evolution at the same time ... what else!!

And the perfect solution to this dilemma is what is referred to as the "Island theory". The Island theory postulates that a group of Neanderthals somehow separated from the main group that evolved into modern homo sapiens, and isolated themselves from whatever environmental conditions that miraculously facilitated those genetic mutations, preventing their evolution into Homo Sapiens species! A Million years later, these evolved humans discovered their un-evolved ancestors and hung out together. I suppose, if you're of the mindset to believe the first story, this second one isn't too much of a stretch.

This is what happens when you take one cockamamie story like evolution ... and have to confront clear evidence showing how ridiculous it is. You need an equally cockamamie story to defend it. And that is what the "Island Theory" is ... a completely absurd theory dreamed up to support an equally absurd theory.

I'm still hearing only blah blah bla, it's all wrong and I'm right because I said so!

Your lovely chart from the 1950's is out of date. We now know there were several species of bipedal ape running around from about 6-7 million years ago onward. It is a branching tree, not a line progression...and all but one of the lines died out. We aren't directly related to Neandertals (though there may have been cross breeding...yuck); they are a different branch. In fact, we coexisted not only with Neanderthals but with Homo Floresiensis too. Not only that, but chances are good we haven't found fossil evidence of the majority of hominid family tree.

But we do have warehouses and museums full of fossils from thousands of different species across hundreds of millions of years. All show clear evidence of the same evolutionary processes that shaped humankind. You may insist on denying the obvious and ridiculing the truth, but I don't think your're gonna fool anyone outside of a few church congregations in the deep South.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Chango

I'm still hearing only blah blah bla, it's all wrong and I'm right because I said so!

Your lovely chart from the 1950's is out of date. We now know there were several species of bipedal ape running around from about 6-7 million years ago onward. It is a branching tree, not a line progression...and all but one of the lines died out. We aren't directly related to Neandertals (though there may have been cross breeding...yuck); they are a different branch. In fact, we coexisted not only with Neanderthals but with Homo Floresiensis too. Not only that, but chances are good we haven't found fossil evidence of the majority of hominid family tree.

But we do have warehouses and museums full of fossils from thousands of different species across hundreds of millions of years. All show clear evidence of the same evolutionary processes that shaped humankind. You may insist on denying the obvious and ridiculing the truth, but I don't think your're gonna fool anyone outside of a few church congregations in the deep South.

Nevermind the fact that there are STILL gaping holes in the fossil record and we have yet to find the "missing link". We've seen example after example of hoaxes claiming to be that turn out to be strange combinations of other animals' skeletons along with human remains. Such as Orse man...I believe Nebraska man was a good one also.

Honestly...it's just not that clear. The evidence just isn't there to support your fairy tale.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I'm your huckleberry ... I don't bite .... too hard.

Why don't you confront my "dreck" head on, instead of hiding behind somebody else's skirt?

Come on, big talker ... let's talk science ... cuz I'm about as close to religious right wing as Jessie Jackson is to the KKK.

But I love debating you one pointers. That is, one point over the average 99.

You don't bite at all... you howl at the moon like a crazy drunk teenager.

And you probably ought to know Riflman is THE source on the forum for all things related to natural science. When I get scared I hide behind HIS well-worn mud stained, bearskin skirt.

But you just make me laugh. It's rare that I ever chat with someone who has such a humerously over-the-top sense of self-aggrandizement.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by JohKnip

What do you think should creationism be taught in public schools? Why or why not?

As a full year of science, in place of other science curriculum, or as a short chapter in a science book, presented as a theory?

[Chango]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Nevermind the fact that there are STILL gaping holes in the fossil record and we have yet to find the "missing link". We've seen example after example of hoaxes claiming to be that turn out to be strange combinations of other animals' skeletons along with human remains. Such as Orse man...I believe Nebraska man was a good one also.

Honestly...it's just not that clear. The evidence just isn't there to support your fairy tale.

Because the "missing link" is a incorrect idea that was abandoned by science decades ago.

Piltdown man is the most infamous fraud. But it's not as infamous, nor as fraudulent as creationism.

Seriously people, before you debate an idea, AT LEAST learn what the idea you are debating is about!

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Children in elementary schools should not be taught theory with no proof.

Ahhh, but when I was in grade school, we were taught that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles, that died out because of the ice-age.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Ahhh, but when I was in grade school, we were taught that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles, that died out because of the ice-age.

Exactly, and all they should have taught you is that dinosaurs existed, and that they didn't know for sure how they died.

I'm not sure when you were in school though. They had the meteor evidence pretty much nailed down by the late 80's when I got to dinosaurs in school. The cold blooded thing didn't start changing until the early 90's that I remember.

I actually wanted to be a paleontologist when I started high school, then I discovered computers.

Evolution is proven as having happened. Now not everything is nailed down on its workings, but we know it happened and is happening now. Creation, on the other hand, has never had any proof, and likely never will. If a creator was wise enough to use natural phenomena to fill the vast space of the Universe, then indeed the only proof of that will be in the eye of the beholder, or when we die if we get the answer then. Either way, its something that shouldn't be taught in grade school.

[JetJockey]

Originally Posted by TKramar

I think it's rather simple--either teach BOTH theories...or teach neither. It's not like most of those kids are going to wind up needing either theory in their working lives anyhow.

[ergohead]

What's to teach?

Bush did it!