DescentBB

So now you think it's ok for the government to be the parents?

To many schools are busy patching up social problems instead of teaching The three Rs. Teachers shouldn't replace the role of parents. Schools shouldn't have to teach boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Heretic wrote:So now you think it's ok for the government to be the parents?

To many schools are busy patching up social problems instead of teaching The three Rs. Teachers shouldn't replace the role of parents. Schools shouldn't have to teach boundaries of acceptable behavior.

It would sure be nice if the schools didn't have to replace the role of parent. But that's what's happening because of households where both parents work, irresponsible parents, parents who didn't want children to begin with, neglectful and/or abusive parents, etc.

And parents like that lead to more parents like that, so we have to break that pattern somehow. The best way? Education.

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:So now you think it's ok for the government to be the parents?

To many schools are busy patching up social problems instead of teaching The three Rs. Teachers shouldn't replace the role of parents. Schools shouldn't have to teach boundaries of acceptable behavior.

It would sure be nice if the schools didn't have to replace the role of parent. But that's what's happening because of households where both parents work, irresponsible parents, parents who didn't want children to begin with, neglectful and/or abusive parents, etc.

And parents like that lead to more parents like that, so we have to break that pattern somehow. The best way? Education.

You don't mean Education you mean indoctrination. You would feel all fuzzy if YOU didn't HAVE to EDUCATE your own child. What you are espousing is that all mofos are stupid twits, and that the public education system will save everybody. Come on! how stupid is we?

Your whole post goes from teachers suck as parents, to the only way to save a parent is to teach them. Jeez.

null0010 wrote: The best way? Education.

Yes, let's just overburden the underfunded, mismanaged, overburdened system with another impossible task. The first being fully preparing young Americans for the American workforce.

We're seriously getting into \"new thread\" territory, guys...

So what are you going to do once your kids are being taught by the government that want to replace you as parent?

How bout we at least teach our children about sexuality, before we start with the deviant* versions.

*Non offensive version.

That link Woody posted is definitely agenda based, I mean what about the term “ho” will it include lessions like…

Well little Johnny…Lisa likes to have 5 men every week…They are going to teach some whitewashed version of gay lifestyle…what would happen if they taught little Johnny what Joey and George are really doing in bed?

What BS!

So where does it end. Teaching that the gay life style is OK? How about teaching that socialism is preferable over capitalism? How about teaching the kids reporting to the teacher if the kids parents are saying derogatory things about the government is OK and they will a gold star if they do? Or singing songs about how wonderful a particular president is? Or which religions are acceptable?

The schools job is to give you the skills to become a functioning and contributive individual, not as a place to shape how you think or what is moral. The parents and their church are the more proper places for such teaching.

Slippery slope fallacy.

null0010 wrote:Slippery slope fallacy.

You are not old enough to know what is fallacy or true.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:Slippery slope fallacy.

You are not old enough to know what is fallacy or true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Don't give me that nonsense about age; you are unaware of mine. Or do you simply not have a better retort?

So you don't believe that small steps can add up to some significant impacts?

Heretic wrote:So you don't believe that small steps can add up to some significant impacts?

They can, but steps listed in a hypothetical order are hardly compelling proof.

The steps are not hypothetical. Perhaps you should read up on the educational system of say China, and see what goes on there. I also suppose you have conveniently forgot this:



So please do not insult our intelligence by stating this is all \"hypothetical\"

Okay, so we have the education system in China, and the education system in the United States. Now illustrate how one leads to the other. That is the hypothetical part.

Also, that video is an isolated incident, one teacher, one school. Hardly institutionalized.

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:So you don't believe that small steps can add up to some significant impacts?

They can, but steps listed in a hypothetical order are hardly compelling proof.

Really isn't evolution based on the hypothetical? Isn't hypothetical step being pushed as proof that evolution is true?

Evolution has a mountain of evidence. It's a scientific theory.

Slippery slope arguments about how teaching kids in school that bullying gay kids is bad will inevitably lead to older men sexually abusing minors... I somehow doubt there's a similar mountain of evidence backing up that idea.

Nice try, though.

missing link
n
1. (Earth Sciences / Palaeontology) (sometimes capitals; usually preceded by the) a hypothetical extinct animal or animal group, formerly thought to be intermediate between the anthropoid apes and man
2. any missing section or part in an otherwise complete series

Okay?

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly…

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml

Heretic wrote:A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly…

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml

same website wrote:By Muneeb Baig, (Grade 10)
Posted: 15 Safar 1423, 28 April 2002

lol who said the E word?

So where your proof that he is wrong?

Heretic wrote:So where your proof that he is wrong?

I don't see any proof that the author of this piece is right to begin with. It's a vessel to sell the books printed by the owners of the website, all linked at the bottom of the article.

Cop out

Yep I did a good job of derailing my own thread.

Richard Dawkins of Oxford University: “We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229).

Dr. Gaylord Simpson “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals…and it is apparently also true of the analogous categories of plants” (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105).

It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist” (The Meaning of Evolution, p. 231).

William Dawson: \"the record of the rocks is thus decidedly against evolutionists” (Nature and the Bible).

Francis Crick Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure: Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved” (What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery).

Dr. Robert A. Millikan Nobel laureate: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove”

Quote mine much?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote40

You could throw out the entire fossil record and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. We can see evolution in action before our very eyes.

From man on boy love to evolution to ...

Flatlander wrote:Quote mine much?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote40

You could throw out the entire fossil record and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. We can see evolution in action before our very eyes.

Nope

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

Heretic wrote:http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

I don't understand exactly what the missing link argument is. Fossil formation is rare. In fact, almost all presently living species do not appear in the fossil record. (I wonder if some day someone will try to doubt their existence.) Are you expecting that we should have fossils of every species that ever existed? By saying that there are missing links, aren't you tacitly admitting that there *is* a chain and in general a phylogenetic tree?

How about we just say that fossils are the result of a great flood and the non fossils are in fact the critters Noah ferreted away on the ark?

AlphaDoG wrote:How about we just say that fossils are the result of a great flood and the non fossils are in fact the critters Noah ferreted away on the ark?

Because that's mind-blowingly unscientific?

Null, I think you're God, testing our faith. I worship you Null!!!! HUMMMNuullleeeooNullleooo... Nullllleoooo!

null0010 wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:How about we just say that fossils are the result of a great flood and the non fossils are in fact the critters Noah ferreted away on the ark?

Because that's mind-blowingly unscientific?

I think that was the idea.

Heretic wrote:Nope

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

hahaha, oh man that article is insultingly funny.

there's no way one article can disprove a huge body of scientific study that's still ongoing?

Do you really think we're a bunch of gullible chumps?


let's be clear here: I can't read what you've written in this forum without either laughing, or feeling like my intelligence has been punched in the gut. I can actually feel my IQ dropping because I read your absurd postings. If I talked about the topic at hand in any way shape or form, I would feel as if I am talking to a wall.

Hahahahaha your a not funny any way Ferno. You can get any dumber any way. You act as though those are my thoughts when it's the scientist them selves who destroy own science with their own words.

Just like Todd, Scott C A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: \"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic\". Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.

or a lecturer when asked for proof states \"Look, just because these are hypothetical does not mean that evolution is not true. We see evolution happening all the time. Evolution is just descent with modification\"

My favorite Singham, Mark \"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary\". Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

Or Appleyard, Bryan \"(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal\". New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45

Your ability to pull sources from published works aside, four quotes from two works with clear agendas is not quite compelling proof.

the scientific case against evolution wrote:First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Wow.

The fact remains science is agenda based. Scientist will only go with evidence that supports their cause. This includes evolutionist and creationist. Both have bias towards their own beliefs. So how can you have a belief in the evidence when you have been misled by both groups of biased peoples?