Page 1 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Aug 2010, 11:24 pm

Australians are learning what it means to have creationists in the classroom


Queensland is allowing fundamentalist Christians to teach religious instruction classes in the public schools — and, as we might have predicted, they are teaching nonsense.

Quote:
Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.

Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.

"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?

"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."


Creationists are crackpots and liars — they simply don't belong at all in positions of responsibility in the public schools, because they are going to intentionally miseducate. What do the education administrators in Queensland say? Why, that students can "opt out" of these classes. That isn't the issue, of course — why are the schools investing scarce resources to give religious extremists and lunatics a platform in the public schools at all?




http://www.news.com.au/national/creatio ... 5899497234



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... Pharyngula)


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

01 Aug 2010, 11:49 pm

Quote:
DNA wasn't invented then


oh god.


_________________
.


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

01 Aug 2010, 11:56 pm

Quote:
Many of the instructors are from Pentecostal churches.

There's a big part of the problem right there. When it comes to preaching theology and teaching creation science, not all churches are equal. Some are extremely polished and can present elaborate, internally consistent arguments. Pentacostals tend to be on the fringe of Christianity and it usually shows.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,673
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Aug 2010, 12:30 am

That's just unreal to me.

OK, SURE I tend to support creation over evolution. Sure, I draw my own conclusions and my reasons are entirely my own.

But here's MY thing, assuming the OP is 100% factual: WHERE does Bible say Noah gathered dino eggs? And where is it written that Adam and Eve were under a protective spell?

Here's my view of the Genesis creation. The idea that God can create the universe in 6 days attests to God's power. Believing that it could happen based upon its inclusion in the Bible is not a terrible thing. In fact, it's not so terrible to accept MANY other things that defy scientific explanation as being miraculous events. What I want to know is WHY can't such things be left as such?

There are other conclusions to be drawn from the flood account, for example. The people on the ark were Noah his three sons, and their wives. If we are to assume that the three sons of Noah were themselves genetically diverse, and if we are to assume the possibility that their wives were also from different pre-flood races, then one need not reason inbreeding. Obviously the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth would only have had their first cousins (at best) to marry without resorting to strict incest. And once their families/clans were well-established, there is no need to believe that their descendants would have had any trouble marrying within their tribes but to increasingly distant relatives. I mean, certain races have maintained their distinction through the millennia: Nubians or sub-Saharan Africans, Asian nationalities, Middle-Easterners, Native Americans, Scandinavians, and so on and so forth. ONE way to explain it is countless generations maintaining the biological integrity of their familial characteristics, retaining such by ONLY marrying cousins (at first) and later by ONLY marrying within the clan or tribe.

So sure, there are MANY things to gain through scriptural study. But scriptures constitute a collection of factual data. You lose the integrity of using the Bible as an informational source when you start explaining the Bible by inserting your own conclusions. In fact, one thing I really try to do in the forums by mentioning the Bible is expressly stating whether something is factually based in scripture or whether what I've said is strictly my OPINION based on certain conclusions I've drawn from the text. If the Bible does not present evidence for, as an example, why certain dino bones don't appear within the rock strata we expect them to appear in, then don't attempt to find a Biblical rationale for it. You simply just need to say "The Bible doesn't explain that and that is something we can't know right now."

But saying something about DNA not being invented by a certain time? THAT seems a litle loony to me.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

02 Aug 2010, 12:34 am

AngelRho wrote:
There are other conclusions to be drawn from the flood account, for example. The people on the ark were Noah his three sons, and their wives. If we are to assume that the three sons of Noah were themselves genetically diverse, and if we are to assume the possibility that their wives were also from different pre-flood races, then one need not reason inbreeding.

Um... yes, you do.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

02 Aug 2010, 1:02 am

AngelRho wrote:
That's just unreal to me.

OK, SURE I tend to support creation over evolution. Sure, I draw my own conclusions and my reasons are entirely my own.

But here's MY thing, assuming the OP is 100% factual: WHERE does Bible say Noah gathered dino eggs? And where is it written that Adam and Eve were under a protective spell?

Here's my view of the Genesis creation. The idea that God can create the universe in 6 days attests to God's power. Believing that it could happen based upon its inclusion in the Bible is not a terrible thing. In fact, it's not so terrible to accept MANY other things that defy scientific explanation as being miraculous events. What I want to know is WHY can't such things be left as such?

There are other conclusions to be drawn from the flood account, for example. The people on the ark were Noah his three sons, and their wives. If we are to assume that the three sons of Noah were themselves genetically diverse, and if we are to assume the possibility that their wives were also from different pre-flood races, then one need not reason inbreeding. Obviously the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth would only have had their first cousins (at best) to marry without resorting to strict incest. And once their families/clans were well-established, there is no need to believe that their descendants would have had any trouble marrying within their tribes but to increasingly distant relatives. I mean, certain races have maintained their distinction through the millennia: Nubians or sub-Saharan Africans, Asian nationalities, Middle-Easterners, Native Americans, Scandinavians, and so on and so forth. ONE way to explain it is countless generations maintaining the biological integrity of their familial characteristics, retaining such by ONLY marrying cousins (at first) and later by ONLY marrying within the clan or tribe.

So sure, there are MANY things to gain through scriptural study. But scriptures constitute a collection of factual data. You lose the integrity of using the Bible as an informational source when you start explaining the Bible by inserting your own conclusions. In fact, one thing I really try to do in the forums by mentioning the Bible is expressly stating whether something is factually based in scripture or whether what I've said is strictly my OPINION based on certain conclusions I've drawn from the text. If the Bible does not present evidence for, as an example, why certain dino bones don't appear within the rock strata we expect them to appear in, then don't attempt to find a Biblical rationale for it. You simply just need to say "The Bible doesn't explain that and that is something we can't know right now."

But saying something about DNA not being invented by a certain time? THAT seems a litle loony to me.



Your absolute and total trust in the validity of the Bible which any rational observer can only see as a compendium of myths, hearsay, all sorts of ancient social traditions, some perhaps valid history, much conflicting opinion, mistakes in translation and copying, some interesting language and poetry and things which can only be primitive attempts to make sense of the world from very limited information indicates something very powerful and destructive has occurred to your basically decent mental functions. I find this very sad.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Aug 2010, 1:18 am

skafather84 wrote:
Australians are learning what it means to have creationists in the classroom


Queensland is allowing fundamentalist Christians to teach religious instruction classes in the public schools — and, as we might have predicted, they are teaching nonsense.

Quote:
Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.

Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.

"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?

"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."


Creationists are crackpots and liars — they simply don't belong at all in positions of responsibility in the public schools, because they are going to intentionally miseducate. What do the education administrators in Queensland say? Why, that students can "opt out" of these classes. That isn't the issue, of course — why are the schools investing scarce resources to give religious extremists and lunatics a platform in the public schools at all?




http://www.news.com.au/national/creatio ... 5899497234



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... Pharyngula)


I think that as long as argument by bad example is perform, how about I start complaining about Haeckel's diagrams, Piltdown man, Darwin's original stance about Lamarck's version of variation, Oparin in regard to abiogenesis and agriculture, Hitler in regard to social Darwinism, Stalin in regard to social Darwinism, North Korea, and the grandfather paradox of the Terminator series of movies.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

02 Aug 2010, 1:53 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Australians are learning what it means to have creationists in the classroom


Queensland is allowing fundamentalist Christians to teach religious instruction classes in the public schools — and, as we might have predicted, they are teaching nonsense.

Quote:
Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.

Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.

"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?

"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."


Creationists are crackpots and liars — they simply don't belong at all in positions of responsibility in the public schools, because they are going to intentionally miseducate. What do the education administrators in Queensland say? Why, that students can "opt out" of these classes. That isn't the issue, of course — why are the schools investing scarce resources to give religious extremists and lunatics a platform in the public schools at all?




http://www.news.com.au/national/creatio ... 5899497234



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... Pharyngula)


I think that as long as argument by bad example is perform, how about I start complaining about Haeckel's diagrams, Piltdown man, Darwin's original stance about Lamarck's version of variation, Oparin in regard to abiogenesis and agriculture, Hitler in regard to social Darwinism, Stalin in regard to social Darwinism, North Korea, and the grandfather paradox of the Terminator series of movies.


Definitely a colorful excursion. Obviously the Terminator films destroy Darwinism totally.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Aug 2010, 2:01 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Australians are learning what it means to have creationists in the classroom


Queensland is allowing fundamentalist Christians to teach religious instruction classes in the public schools — and, as we might have predicted, they are teaching nonsense.

Quote:
Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.

Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.

"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?

"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."


Creationists are crackpots and liars — they simply don't belong at all in positions of responsibility in the public schools, because they are going to intentionally miseducate. What do the education administrators in Queensland say? Why, that students can "opt out" of these classes. That isn't the issue, of course — why are the schools investing scarce resources to give religious extremists and lunatics a platform in the public schools at all?




http://www.news.com.au/national/creatio ... 5899497234



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... Pharyngula)


I think that as long as argument by bad example is perform, how about I start complaining about Haeckel's diagrams, Piltdown man, Darwin's original stance about Lamarck's version of variation, Oparin in regard to abiogenesis and agriculture, Hitler in regard to social Darwinism, Stalin in regard to social Darwinism, North Korea, and the grandfather paradox of the Terminator series of movies.


Definitely a colorful excursion. Obviously the Terminator films destroy Darwinism totally.


Yes, they're as absolutely relevant to the validity of evolutionism and its veracity or falsity as are any other bad examples of proponents of a theory or hypothesis or Absolut-fact or ideology disproving such a structure of thought by their bad example.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

02 Aug 2010, 2:25 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that as long as argument by bad example is perform, how about I start complaining about Haeckel's diagrams, Piltdown man, Darwin's original stance about Lamarck's version of variation, Oparin in regard to abiogenesis and agriculture, Hitler in regard to social Darwinism, Stalin in regard to social Darwinism, North Korea, and the grandfather paradox of the Terminator series of movies.

Stalin opposed Darwinism.

Anyways, creationism fails on its own grounds, separate from this particular issue. I think we can all agree that the nonsense reported in the OP is unacceptable.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Aug 2010, 2:37 am

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that as long as argument by bad example is perform, how about I start complaining about Haeckel's diagrams, Piltdown man, Darwin's original stance about Lamarck's version of variation, Oparin in regard to abiogenesis and agriculture, Hitler in regard to social Darwinism, Stalin in regard to social Darwinism, North Korea, and the grandfather paradox of the Terminator series of movies.

Stalin opposed Darwinism.

Anyways, creationism fails on its own grounds, separate from this particular issue. I think we can all agree that the nonsense reported in the OP is unacceptable.


Stalin did not oppose Oparin's version of evolution though nor did he oppose social Darwinism though, as per Darwin's other literary work Descent of Man in regard to races and civilizations. I agree that the original post is from an article which picked the worst possible example to ridicule and a blog post which managed to distill the worst of the worst even further.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

02 Aug 2010, 3:28 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Stalin did not oppose Oparin's version of evolution though nor did he oppose social Darwinism though, as per Darwin's other literary work Descent of Man in regard to races and civilizations. I agree that the original post is from an article which picked the worst possible example to ridicule and a blog post which managed to distill the worst of the worst even further.

Stalin (and official Communist ideology) most definitely did oppose social Darwinism. They saw Darwinism, especially social Darwinism, as a product of the corrupt West.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,915
Location: Home

02 Aug 2010, 3:58 am

AngelRho wrote:
Here's my view of the Genesis creation. The idea that God can create the universe in 6 days attests to God's power. Believing that it could happen based upon its inclusion in the Bible is not a terrible thing. In fact, it's not so terrible to accept MANY other things that defy scientific explanation as being miraculous events. What I want to know is WHY can't such things be left as such?

Because many people don't accept false beliefs, as beautiful as they might sound. A fictional tale is still a fictional tale, regardless.

Quote:
There are other conclusions to be drawn from the flood account, for example. The people on the ark were Noah his three sons, and their wives. If we are to assume that the three sons of Noah were themselves genetically diverse, and if we are to assume the possibility that their wives were also from different pre-flood races, then one need not reason inbreeding. Obviously the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth would only have had their first cousins (at best) to marry without resorting to strict incest. And once their families/clans were well-established, there is no need to believe that their descendants would have had any trouble marrying within their tribes but to increasingly distant relatives. I mean, certain races have maintained their distinction through the millennia: Nubians or sub-Saharan Africans, Asian nationalities, Middle-Easterners, Native Americans, Scandinavians, and so on and so forth. ONE way to explain it is countless generations maintaining the biological integrity of their familial characteristics, retaining such by ONLY marrying cousins (at first) and later by ONLY marrying within the clan or tribe.

The story of the flood have enough problems, and that without the mention of the barbarian act of genocide from the OT God, the mass killing of men, women, children and babies. Something that only seems to make sense at the time the story was written.

Quote:
So sure, there are MANY things to gain through scriptural study. But scriptures constitute a collection of factual data. You lose the integrity of using the Bible as an informational source when you start explaining the Bible by inserting your own conclusions. In fact, one thing I really try to do in the forums by mentioning the Bible is expressly stating whether something is factually based in scripture or whether what I've said is strictly my OPINION based on certain conclusions I've drawn from the text. If the Bible does not present evidence for, as an example, why certain dino bones don't appear within the rock strata we expect them to appear in, then don't attempt to find a Biblical rationale for it. You simply just need to say "The Bible doesn't explain that and that is something we can't know right now."

You mean ad hocness. The Bible is written by men who did not get the proper knowledge of physics, biology and geology, much less knowledge of DNA.

Quote:
But saying something about DNA not being invented by a certain time? THAT seems a litle loony to me.

Creationism IS loony, and it makes as much sense as believing that DNA wasn't invented by the time of the flood.


How come Australia let backwards beliefs being thaught as "science" in public shools? That is abhorrent!


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 02 Aug 2010, 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

02 Aug 2010, 4:17 am

greenblue wrote:
How come Australia let backwards beliefs being thaught as "science" in public shools? That is abhorrent!

It's not being taught as science. The article describes Religious Instruction classes which are at least somewhat optional (it is possible to opt out of the class) at Australian primary schools. Evidently, the classes got hijacked by Pentecostals and other lunatics who are now using the classes as a medium to promote their anti-science viewpoints.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,915
Location: Home

02 Aug 2010, 4:24 am

Orwell wrote:
It's not being taught as science. The article describes Religious Instruction classes which are at least somewhat optional (it is possible to opt out of the class) at Australian primary schools. Evidently, the classes got hijacked by Pentecostals and other lunatics who are now using the classes as a medium to promote their anti-science viewpoints.

I see, my bad. :oops

well, in that case, the problem is not as I initially thought it was, at least creationism is there where it belongs, religion classes, but yeah I get the agenda of these lunatics.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?