Some front line views of the war against God.
Sorry for the double post, I couldn't edit again after I wanted to add to one of my points....
And oddly, you keep stating that you're not trying to disprove evolution yet you state here that if it were true, it would do X, and then provide examples of how it doesn't do X.
Wouldn't it be silly of you to believe something that, in your mind, has been proven not to exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
This is all im saying, I by no means intend to say evolution is entirely not true.
Why are you showing so many examples of things that you think prove that evolution isn't real, at the same time as saying you're not trying to disprove evolution?
Some front line views of the war against God.
I tried to give you greenies Hardcore, but it said I couldnt anymore.
So... here's a cookie.
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
I tried to give you greenies Hardcore, but it said I couldnt anymore.
So... here's a cookie.
Actually cookies are my biggest weakness, the only thing I'm truly addicted to. I need more.
Some front line views of the war against God.
I'm not sure if this whole education thing is worth arguing over since any creationist christian teacher (at least the ones I've had) will only touch on evolution enough to satisfy higher ups. It would be nice to have teachers that didn't let their own bias get in the way. Of course, I'm sure none of you would teach something you didn't believe was true.
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadmiumblimp
I'm not sure if this whole education thing is worth arguing over since any creationist christian teacher (at least the ones I've had) will only touch on evolution enough to satisfy higher ups. It would be nice to have teachers that didn't let their own bias get in the way. Of course, I'm sure none of you would teach something you didn't believe was true.
If I were a mythology teacher, I'd have no problem with it. if I were a science teacher, then only things with scientific proof would be allowed.
Some front line views of the war against God.
Good point. That still doesn't change the fact that a lot of science teachers (at least where I went to school) are also Christian creationists and often skip over or just lightly touch on evolution.
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadmiumblimp
Good point. That still doesn't change the fact that a lot of science teachers (at least where I went to school) are also Christian creationists and often skip over or just lightly touch on evolution.
It is something that will depend person to person. Some people just shouldnt be teachers, its that simple.
I am planning on becoming a teacher after I finish my masters, and I have every intent of trying to teach my students about everything, even things I dont believe in or dont like, but then again its teaching philosophy, so its a bit more suited for that kind of thing.
Granted I am sure bias will naturally try to get in the way with such things, but part of the challenge there is making sure to overcome it. Thankfully I have a love for knowledge of all kinds, so it makes it a bit easier, but it doesnt completely stop it.
Some front line views of the war against God.
Fallen Icarus :: I can't be bothered to quote the whole post - you don't listen anyway.
You are still falling back on Abiogenesis - bad tactic.
You used "Transitional Fossils" to attack Evolution (suggesting there are none).
Do your research more thoroughly as this is a typical error that creationists might make -
here is a list of them (Transitional Fossils) :
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
o Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
o "Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
o Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
o [note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
o Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
o Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
o Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
o Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
o Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
o Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
o Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
o Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
o Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
o Homo habilis.
o Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
o Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
o [I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
o Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
o Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
o [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
o Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
o Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
o Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
o Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
o Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
o Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
o [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
o Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
o Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
o Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
o Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
o Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
o Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
o Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
o Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
o Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
o Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
o Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
o Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
o Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
o Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
o Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
o Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
o [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
o Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
o Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
o Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
o Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
o Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
o Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
o Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
o Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
o 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
o 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
o 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
o Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
o Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
o Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
o Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
o Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
o Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
o Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
o Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
o Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
o Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
o Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
o Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
o Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
o Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
o Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
o Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
o Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.
Some websites with more info if you want to learn something
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
Quote:
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.
Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
OK my 'College Education' says "how about Downs Syndrome?" ;) for a start.
Trisomy 21: The Origin of Down Syndrome
The rest of your comments and attacks on Biology are pretty idiotic imho. Let's not forget this is the same biology that brought you antibiotics (saved my bacon before!) and as for no evidence of speciation - there are loads:
Observed Instances of Speciation
The Process of Speciation
Species, Speciation, and the Environment by Niles Eldredge, Ph.D.
FOCUS | September 1, 2006 | GENETICS: Gene Linked to Beak Length in Darwin Finch
So that's Transitional fossils and Speciation debunked - NEXT!
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
Are you suggesting that the schools shouldn't teach children the real classification of birds because it might contradict a parent's teachings?
That certainly is a cute story, but no, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I simply meant that the distinct topic of determining a factual origin of species is still up for plenty of debate. I don't want to tell my children that Darwin was wrong, because who can be 100% sure? But I'd really rather not be directly contradicted in this matter, because it would be more confusing for the child...not because it would affect my peace of mind in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
You're right, science is much better left out of the hands of biased scientists.
No, sir. Theology should be left out of the hands of biased scientists. Everything else that needs to be taught can stay! :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
I assure you that I always find it funny. Yet for some reason I always engage. probably for the humour.
I can certainly relate to the way you feel...I used to love getting online and spending hours participating in debates. I guess I'm just getting old now, because I'm usually too tired to get online and argue my point of view anymore...even when it's about a topic that really means something to me. I call it "internet indifference", others might call it "laziness"!
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
I understand that the parent has rights over his children, yet the children have the right to believe whatever they please.
Even so, what if the theory in science contradicts the theory their parents teach them? How do you measure which is the correct theory to teach them? Through your humble indoctrinated opinion of Christianity?
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that it's in most parents nature to try and instill common aspects of their own belief system into their child. I already know that my children will grow up to be independent thinkers, because that's exactly how I am raising them...not to be afraid to think for themselves. My humble and indoctrinated opinion of Christianity is also just that...mine, and mine alone. I'm not forcing my children to be Christian, they already want to be a Christian on their own volition. I also wasn't indoctrinated by my parents...I discovered the religion all on my own. I considered myself an agnostic for much of my life, up until I graduated from college, which is when I made my decision. Now I attend church, and subsequently, my children do too. But I'm not forcing my beliefs on them as some overbearing Christian parents might do. Quite the opposite actually...my children enjoy what they're being taught in their Sunday school. So why stop going? Because it's impossible to know for certain whether or not there even is a God? Even though I don't have any factual evidence on the matter, I still can have faith. And I still do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
Do you really think you are enforcing the right for children to have their OWN beliefs?
Of course I am! I'm not holding a gun to their head and making them attend church! They already look forward to going. Call it indoctrination, call it ritualistic, call it a hobby...the point is, it's what they want to do. And it would actually be selfish of me to try and stop them from going...not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen_Icarus
Which explains why people (in this case the parent) should question their own beliefs.
I've questioned my beliefs for much of my life, as I mentioned before. Christianity is what eventually made the most sense to me, and is also what I find to be the most comfortable system of beliefs. I understand that there are inconsistencies in the religion, though. There are inconsistencies in every religion, and I would know, because I've studied many of them in great depth. But, as the meat of this entire thread will also point out, there are plenty of inconsistencies in alternative belief systems (evolution, abiogenesis, etc.), as well. I try to remain altruistic when discussing why I chose my religion over others. In fact, I once considered myself a devout Mahayana Buddhist before I let myself become indoctrinated into the Christian religion. I still retain many Buddhist values to this day...pretty much the only difference being that I'll no longer bow before any images/statues of Buddha. Besides that, I think it's a wonderful philosophy & way of living.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
Do you really feel its a viable option to remove the teaching of all knowledge on a subject, be any specific part true or false, for a bit of peace of mind?
Regarding this particular topic and the relevancy of the issues at hand for biased parents, I don't see how it could do any harm to just move on to another topic. If it's purely theoretical on both sides of the spectrum anyway, I don't see the need for it to be taught in our schools...especially when it could be misconstrued for fact by a biased science teacher. And I'm not just referring to evolutionary leaning teachers/professors here, either. It works both ways. The zealous parents (on both sides) would be able to sleep easier at night, and the children would be free to focus on more important areas of science while in class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
In the end, someone is always wrong, not implying that that someone is ID or Evolution, but there is always someone who is wrong, someone who is right. If we go about life worrying about offending those who are wrong, we will get nowhere as a civilization.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Another reason why I think we could do without having to even discuss this topic, unless by random coincidence, someone were to bring it up. Then it can be discussed/debated upon with an open mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
I personally have no doubt that anything I say will not affect anyone here. I dont think that highly of myself that my digital words would have any amount of sway or hold over others typing theirs. Hell, Id be happy and honored if half the people responding to me would actually read what I wrote before responding, not to imply any of the people in this conversation at the moment are doing that, because you arent, but you get what I am getting at.
I enjoy these kinds of things though because it is a little bit of a battle of wits, intelligence, and sometimes The Google. But I also enjoy learning about other viewpoints, even if they may not affect mine in any way, because its more knowledge that I have gained. Id hope that everyone looks at it that way in some way or another, because there isn't much of a point to any of this otherwise, because you are right, none of us are going to change the other persons mind.
I've read every single post, word for word, that you and everyone else here has made since the topic was introduced. Even after it started becoming slightly monotonous. Mainly because I, like you, enjoy learning what other people think about the matter...but also because my interest has been piqued with all of the references getting thrown around. I find everyones viewpoint intriguing on this matter, which is why I'm still hanging around!
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
As Chris Rock said in Dogma..
Great movie, by the way! :thumbsup:
---
Ok, so I apologize if it seems that I'm trying to hijack this thread. It honestly wasn't my intention to get involved, and I'll graciously go about my business again & let everyone have fun with the rest of the debate! Just remember to keep open minds about all of the possibilities, not just the ones that you deem most factually relevant/coherent.
Peace. :hippy:
-Mr. C
Some front line views of the war against God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
It is something that will depend person to person. Some people just shouldnt be teachers, its that simple.
Yeah. With the teacher I was thinking of most, she was more a math teacher anyway. I like how there really isn't, to my knowledge, any way that ideologies can conflict with mathematics -- the numbers can't lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
I am planning on becoming a teacher after I finish my masters, and I have every intent of trying to teach my students about everything, even things I dont believe in or dont like, but then again its teaching philosophy, so its a bit more suited for that kind of thing.
I like this. If more educators had that philosophy, maybe we would have a better education system. Wait, no, maybe if it wasn't so "uncool" to be smart in America we would have a better education system. It really isn't the school's responsibility to teach, it's the student's responsibility to learn. The smartest students aren't the ones that are taught the best, they're the ones that go out and learn shit on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Of course I am! I'm not holding a gun to their head and making them attend church! They already look forward to going. Call it indoctrination, call it ritualistic, call it a hobby...the point is, it's what they want to do. And it would actually be selfish of me to try and stop them from going...not the other way around.
If I might ask, how old are your children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Regarding this particular topic and the relevancy of the issues at hand for biased parents, I don't see how it could do any harm to just move on to another topic. If it's purely theoretical on both sides of the spectrum anyway, I don't see the need for it to be taught in our schools...especially when it could be misconstrued for fact by a biased science teacher. And I'm not just referring to evolutionary leaning teachers/professors here, either. It works both ways. The zealous parents (on both sides) would be able to sleep easier at night, and the children would be free to focus on more important areas of science while in class.
Why should things that are purely theoretical not be taught in school? Just because some things are just theoretical doesn't mean the knowledge of them is a lesser form of knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
I find everyones viewpoint intriguing on this matter, which is why I'm still hanging around!
I like being around people, one of the reasons being that it exposes me to other viewpoints, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. This thread has started to go in a different direction and I like that -- the old direction was getting a bit stale.
