Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Did you read this thread at all?? We are not talking freedom of religion. We are talking about the freedom some people want to screw up their kids' education. People can be whatever religion they want, but to teach their kids some inane made-up nonsense instead of actual demonstrable science, then that is tantamount to child abuse. It doesn't matter whether religion forced the teaching of nonsense, or support of a sports team, or mental illness, or sheer stupidity - it's the fact some parents think it's fine to teach nonsense to their kids that some have issues with.

I take it you're fine with teaching rubbish to kids. Nice.

reply to post by davesidious


You are correct that this is not about freedom of religion, however why exactly can the government tell parents what they are allowed to teach their children when they are at home? I am in full support of teaching facts at school, but i wouldn't presume to tell a parent what they can teach their child in the privacy of their own home and neither should you. As long as what they are teaching is legal, that is the line.

reply to post by rusethorcain


I have no idea why some one would tell you to stay on topic when you are addressing the OP with a solution instead of jumping all over everybody.

I actually think almost exactly like your post .

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


That's my point. Where does it become legal to intentionally lie to a child? The child is not old enough to know when their parents are passing off falsehoods as fact - that's why they are being educated, after all.

If a parent home-schooled their kid, and in their maths class decided to teach their kid that numbers stop at 7, and that the '+' sign means 'happy', and that subtraction is impossible, constantly for the duration of that child's maths education at their hands, would that not be akin to child abuse?

It's fine for parents to intentionally corrupt their own education, but to do it to their kids is not really fair, is it?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


You see here Nich how worthless posts are without the words of the quote you want to address. If you did you would know that designation was your word and you are oblivious of it.

Of course I used the word designation, to say that our courses aren't numbered 101 to 309 or whatever. Are you asking me what classes in biology I attended or what?
I take it you're asking me what education I have. I told you that among other things, I have a major in history. Aren't we running in circles?

Who cares where you used to live. If you told us where you live and work now it would give your argument much more weight. You would be viewed as one who is sincere and not hiding in some cubicle trying to shout down others freedom.

Fair game. Tell me your current adress and what you are working right now and I'll do the same. Although I won't post this here; if you need to know then U2U me and I'll tell you. Sorry but I have already given out all the personal information about me that I am willing to in a public realm. U2U me and I'll give you my full biography if you so desire.

Aren't you the one whose shouting other people down? I mean you're not shouting but you engage in a hit and run style of argumentation, only answering what you can or care to (that doesn't seem to be much) and constantly throwing out nasty ad-homs to others.

At least you stopped accusing people of not having a penis. For you, that's real progress.

Anyway. your point?

[edit on 9-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

BTW - are you mistaking Hypostasis with Hypothesis? Some of your points make no sense if you're not. I was just wondering. It might help clear up those posts about alcohol that nobody seems to be able to grasp.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 9-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Did you read this thread at all?? We are not talking freedom of religion. We are talking about the freedom some people want to screw up their kids' education. People can be whatever religion they want, but to teach their kids some inane made-up nonsense instead of actual demonstrable science, then that is tantamount to child abuse. It doesn't matter whether religion forced the teaching of nonsense, or support of a sports team, or mental illness, or sheer stupidity - it's the fact some parents think it's fine to teach nonsense to their kids that some have issues with.

I take it you're fine with teaching rubbish to kids. Nice.

What I teach my kids is my business and none of yours.
Can you not reply without all the un-necessary negativity?
You can teach your children what ever you want. In what ever country you live in.
Tell them their ancestors are baboons or worms.
That is fine with me. I am not here to jam something down your kids throat.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

That's my point. Where does it become legal to intentionally lie to a child? The child is not old enough to know when their parents are passing off falsehoods as fact - that's why they are being educated, after all.

Legal to lie? It's completely legal to lie to a child. However the parents do not see what they are telling the child as lies. Lets be clear, creationism has as much proof as religions do, that being none and yet you seem ok with religions being taught.

Look all i'm saying is that children can be taught whatever the parents like at home. Anyway when the child learns about evolution from a school, with all of the lovely facts and details then maybe the intelligent ones will realise creationism is completely without merit.

Originally posted by davesidious
If a parent home-schooled their kid, and in their maths class decided to teach their kid that numbers stop at 7, and that the '+' sign means 'happy', and that subtraction is impossible, constantly for the duration of that child's maths education at their hands, would that not be akin to child abuse?

The difference here is that the child would struggle to live any kind of normal life if they thought such things because they could not function in society and therefore it would be child abuse. Simply teaching them that a magic sky fairy made the world will not stop them from getting a job and living normally.

Originally posted by davesidious
It's fine for parents to intentionally corrupt their own education, but to do it to their kids is not really fair, is it?

Fair no, but unless real abuse is taking place, and by that i mean the children being taught something that will completely destroy their lives, the government should not involve itself.

Remember that government should always be shackled because the moment you give it the key to the jail it will imprison the guards.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Star and well said.
Finding middle ground has never hurt a debate. IMO

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

That's my point. Where does it become legal to intentionally lie to a child? The child is not old enough to know when their parents are passing off falsehoods as fact - that's why they are being educated, after all.

If a parent home-schooled their kid, and in their maths class decided to teach their kid that numbers stop at 7, and that the '+' sign means 'happy', and that subtraction is impossible, constantly for the duration of that child's maths education at their hands, would that not be akin to child abuse?

It's fine for parents to intentionally corrupt their own education, but to do it to their kids is not really fair, is it?

This is thought out as most of your posts are. Can you back up the stop at 7 or + means happy education being taught ANYWHERE?
Why are you so un-+?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
This is thought out as most of your posts are. Can you back up the stop at 7 or + means happy education being taught ANYWHERE?
Why are you so un-+?

Donny seriously you don't need to continually be so rude. It's the way you treat people that results in the misunderstandings and hostility aimed at both you and your opinions. Consider for a moment you have just starred my post as you consider it being a middle ground. Donny if you had stayed calm and approached the thread in a respectful manner then you would have realised much earlier that i have held that view from the start.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


"BTW - are you mistaking Hypostasis with Hypothesis? Some of your points make no sense if you're not. I was just wondering. It might help clear up those posts about alcohol that nobody seems to be able to grasp."





There is little difference. What exactly is your problem here?
I knew folks would run for the hills or be bewildered by real evolution .



Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis Hypostasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypostasis (from the Ancient Greek ὑπόστᾰσις) may refer to: Hypostatic abstraction (mathematics and logic); Hypostasis (linguistics), personification of ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis - Similar



BTW you are the only one on this thread to mention the P word.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Thanks for your advice.
So are you agreeing that someone, somewhere is teaching that imaginary crap?
Davey's analogy looks more like DNA coding than anything else I have ever seen taught.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


It is everyone else's business, as you've failed as a parent to educate your child enough so they can hold a proper job. They will become more of a drain on society. The world doesn't end at your front door.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


My issue is that teaching religions to kids doesn't displace actual, real knowledge. Creationism being taught, though, does, as it displaces evolution. The kid no longer has extra, fluffy baggage, but instead has fluffy baggage where solid, useful baggage exists. That is dangerous.

Teaching a kid that the magical sky zombie jesus made everything will definitely rule them out from studying biology at university, and if they accept that the creationist nonsense is true (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) it'll be very difficult for that kid to get a further education in any field of science. It'll be straight to some dead-end job in an office for them, or at worst flipping burgers.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Please read my post. That was an analogy. Do you know what an analogy is?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Thanks for your advice.
So are you agreeing that someone, somewhere is teaching that imaginary crap?

Where did i ever say i agreed someone was teaching the proposed maths idea?

Originally posted by davesidious
My issue is that teaching religions to kids doesn't displace actual, real knowledge. Creationism being taught, though, does, as it displaces evolution. The kid no longer has extra, fluffy baggage, but instead has fluffy baggage where solid, useful baggage exists. That is dangerous.

Yes and no. Remembe that there are many creationists out there who live normal lives and hold down decent, well paying jobs. So i think it is a little wrong to say that parents cannot teach this at home or in church. I am in full support of your stance on teaching it in schools though. It has no place in a science class.

Originally posted by davesidious
Teaching a kid that the magical sky zombie jesus made everything will definitely rule them out from studying biology at university, and if they accept that the creationist nonsense is true (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) it'll be very difficult for that kid to get a further education in any field of science. It'll be straight to some dead-end job in an office for them, or at worst flipping burgers.

That's the thing. The intelligent kids will realise that creationism is ridiculous. They will go on and do well and maybe it's a form of intelligent selection lol.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

That's my point. Where does it become legal to intentionally lie to a child? The child is not old enough to know when their parents are passing off falsehoods as fact - that's why they are being educated, after all.

If a parent home-schooled their kid, and in their maths class decided to teach their kid that numbers stop at 7, and that the '+' sign means 'happy', and that subtraction is impossible, constantly for the duration of that child's maths education at their hands, would that not be akin to child abuse?

It's fine for parents to intentionally corrupt their own education, but to do it to their kids is not really fair, is it?

This is thought out as most of your posts are. Can you back up the stop at 7 or + means happy education being taught ANYWHERE?
Why are you so un-+?

This is not about the concrete example. It doesnt matter if parents dont teach their child evolution or maths, reading\writing. This is about the principle - If parents are allowed to cherrypick from the curriculum or they are not.

If my family would decide to not learn my homeschooled sister some part of the curriculum, we would have social workers on our neck. And thats how it should be, IMHO.

They can teach their child whatever they want, as long as it includes everything in the curriculum. And I think evolution is still in there...

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Here is what you are looking for

Now if you want to talk evolution and scientific conspiracy. Start here with my hypotstasis---
All are welcome.
No religon bashing might keep most away though.



Alcohol and Measured Human Evolution

No Gene for Alcoholism, but a possible way to measure Human evolution.

This hypostasis of mine is 20 years old. I would like to explore it with you members as genetics and origins seem to be topics of interest.

My belief is that If you were to examine the genes of a society or culture that has weaned it self away from the use of alcohol---- say CHINA . Less than one percent of the population use alcohol. Compare the Chinese to a culture of 80 percent users. Australian and North American aboriginals are 80 percent users.
You would be able to measure the difference genetically and establish a time line for that transition.

Here are some facts to get started.

If you look at the global percentages of consumption of alcohol. Then start in China and follow a spice trade like route east. You will find India Indians have a 25 percent rate of use, Asia Minor and the Mediterranean countries about 35 percent. Northern Europe and Africa clock in at about 55 percent.

The most interesting is pre European North America and Australia at an amazing 80 percent.

I compiled this data after having a very heated debate with NIH scientists . It was about the foolish breeding of Super Rats, the study of twins and convicts to find the DNA markers that prove their parent or parents caused them to become alcoholic by passing them a bad gene or predisposition for what they were now calling a disease.

When I had collected the factual data I looked at its Linearity and surmised that there could be genetic reason for the east - west increase in consumption due to reproduction.

Everything looked pretty good until I got to the Atlantic Ocean and became confused.
The science at the time was saying alcoholics inherited a predisposition from an alcoholic parent or parents much like cancer. At the time cancer had the visible DNA markers.
That could explain, that if the societal use of alcohol started in China and then copulated its way West with the spices over a period of time, you would find no barrier to stop its dissemination.

Stick with me here because I think this is the most important part.

I now had the two interesting dilemmas.

1----How did this disease copulate its way across the Atlantic and Indian ocean?
2----Why did the data percentages seem backwards?

There is no record of large scale use of alcohol in pre European N. America or Australia and no reports of massive inter-breeding to facilitate a grand scale genetic change in the aboriginal populations over night.

And why in the world would there be more drunks in those populations than in the once pie eyed Chinese.

( Absolutely no disrespect to any of the countries or cultures here.) Every culture and country in it's turn has had an identical scenario.

It occurred to me that the aboriginals didn't get the sex, just the hooch. And the booze got them drunk not their folks.

After thinking about this for awhile, I figured the data wasn't backwards at all.

If the Chinese were first to use alcohol, using the left over rice from a newly contrived agriculture ------
(my calculated guess is 7 -8,000 years ago) and if they past that process west, the numbers from the data start to make sense.
This is ok but does a poor job of explaining why there is today more use in the west than there is in the east.
Aha ha! What if the Chinese became slowly immune to the poison by a evolutionary process.
Selection of a mate, social awareness, depletion of food sources etc.

Repeat this process west ward and the data are looking pretty good.

Ok then, HOW do you prove this!
And I am not saying I can.
If I had a bunch of sober Chinese DNA donors and some from pure blooded North America and Australia aboriginals and a test lab, that would be a start.

Way unlike the National Institute of Health's program.
Perhaps it has changed in the last 20 years but I doubt it.

This was the end of my thread when I last posted it.
I was banned for some month so the thread fell apart.

Do to help from other members I found out some good recent news that fits well in the Hypostasis.
Dr. Lee of the Nat Institute Of health has reported that central Asians have been assaulted with a flush gene that keeps Chinese folks from consuming. I was right!
Russian geneticist have tracked and documented that gene.
Their maps look exactly like my spice trade Hypostasis.
It also shows the dissemination of the gene south through the South Pacific.
Unfortunately they think it is a bad gene because it seems to can cause esophageal cancer in those that still attempt to consume alcohol. They don't connect it to a antidotal type of gene that has mutated to change the ability to consume it. Alcohol is a slow poison, The human factor responds slowly.
I contend the only predisposition to consume is good health.
I am bucking convention with my thinking and would like some input Thanks you all.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I have read what you posted but i'm failing to see what it has to do with this thread. Alcohol and genes, i thought this thread was to do with home schooling and whether the government has the right to interfere with what children are taught at home.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


from your source:

In linguistics, a hypostasis (from the Greek word ὑπόστασις [1]

meaning foundation, base or that which stands behind), is a relationship between a name and a known quantity, as a cultural personification (i.e. objectification with personality) of an entity or quality. It often connotes the personification of typically elemental powers, such as wind and fire, or human life, fertility, and death.


The term hypostasis is considered to be scientifically and culturally neutral, for the purpose of describing name-to-term relationships that, within religion and theology might be termed a "deification," or otherwise by the more pejorative "idolatry." The concept of "hypostasis" functions as a kind of conceptual inverse for terms which may have originated as personal names, and have linguistically evolved to become common terms for general concepts and qualities.

So no, that's not a synonym for Hypothesis.

Hypostatic abstraction, also known as hypostasis or subjectal abstraction, is a formal operation that takes an element of information, such as might be expressed in a proposition of the form X is Y, and conceives its information to consist in the relation between a subject and another subject, such as expressed in a proposition of the form X has Y-ness. The existence of the latter subject, here Y-ness, consists solely in the truth of those propositions that have the corresponding concrete term, here Y, as the predicate. The object of discussion or thought thus introduced may also be called a hypostatic object.

Did you mean this kind of Hypostasis? That's also not a synonym for Hypothesis.

You may be reffering to the philosophical/theological term, but that one lacks an adequate definition. But suffice to say I have studied philosophy and have not once in all those years read a text that used Hypostasis as a synonym for Hypothesis. Maybe when referring to belief systems of early christian sects or you'll find it in early greek philosophy (Aristotle, the only place where the word Hypostasis even comes near meaning something along the lines of "Hypothesis"). To say that it is used as a synonym is not very accurate.

Anyway.

Why do you always only answer approx. a third of the questions people ask you?

[edit on 9-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

That's the thing. The intelligent kids will realise that creationism is ridiculous. They will go on and do well and maybe it's a form of intelligent selection lol.

It is very cruel to do something like this to a child, which believes almost anything you tell him. Child abuse, IMHO, and a crime.

Imagine that you would not get your major in history because your parents told you that the world is in fact 6000 years old and mainstream history is lies. It would not be so lol then, would it?

reply to post by Maslo


You must see that this is just academic blackmail don't you? To force teach theory is just wrong.
A person can live a very productive life without ever knowing what a peptide is.
How much of this theory is at work at Mc Donald's these days.
It is comparable to forcing small handicapped kids to get a passing grade in basketball before they can graduate.
Why not just teach this theory stuff in high school and University where it is an elective.
State sponsored black mail IMO.