Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Also, evolution hasn't been Darwin's theory for quite some time. It's been added to and amended over the years as more and more data is acquired.

that maybe so, but the title of the thread includes the words DARWIN and EVOLUTION , so I'm just trying to stay on topic.

I'm an ex nurse and understand biology just fine.
My education hardly touched on Darwinism, so it just goes to show you can have a career in a medical field without it.
I'm sure I could find a Doctor who doesn't subscribe to Darwins theory too if I tried. They work with human BIOLOGY everyday too.

My point being is that is isn't NECESSARY, it's optional.

A good education is one that is well rounded and in depth.

What I would like to bring up is that there are some great scientists coming to the conclusion that the more they uncover, that the more they are coming to the realization that intelligent design is making more and more sense.

Of course it is a theory also, the same as evolution.

Just my critical mind's ability to see beyond the veil, so to speak.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

There was a time when the Bible was the only source for science Pal.
Man just followed the Bibles lead.

Did you know that there are a Great many "Scientifically Prophetic" Bible passeges?
Many Scientists,Evolutionists, Astronomers, Athiests will often try to," lend a boot"
to Chritianity or the Bible by using science.
What I would like to show those that are interested.
Is how the Christian Bible is actually
centuries ahead of science with out beiTime had a beginning - 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:72
The universe had a beginning - Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3
The universe was created from the invisible(atoms) - Hebrews 11:34
The dimensions of the universe were created - Romans 8:38-395
The universe is expanding - 44:24Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5,
Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)
- Genesis 2:3-47
The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures
that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy) - Psalm 102:25-278
Describes the correct order of creation - Genesis 1 (Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation)
Number of stars exceeds a billion - Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229(Also I think that this
one predicts that man will also exceed the billions)
Every star is different - 1 Corinthians 15:4110
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups - Job 38:3111
Light is in motion - Job 38:19-2012
The earth is controlled by the heavens - Job 38:331
Earth is a sphere - Isaiah 40:2213 Job 26:1014
At any time, there is day and night on the Earth - Luke 17:34-3515
Earth is suspended in space - Job 26:716
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described -
Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:517
Water cycle described - Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea - 2 Samuel 22:1619
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea - Job 38:1620
Ocean currents in the sea - Psalm 8:821
Air has weight - Job 28:2522
Winds blow in circular paths - Ecclesiastes 1:623
The chemical nature of human life - Genesis 2:7, 3:1924
Life of creatures are in the blood - Leviticus 17:1125
The nature of infectious diseases - Leviticus 13:4626
Importance of sanitation to health - Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-927
credit agree to disagree
.......................................................................................

Try again.

I know there was a time when the bible was science, thats WHY we shouldn't use the bible as science

reply to post by endisnighe


The thing is because intelligent design relies on a higher power of some kind you will never be able to find as much evidence supporting it as there is for evolution. In the end at most it will ever be is a philosophy, it's very nature prevents it from being an established scientific theory.

Fundamentaly, Religion and science CANNOT dissagree because they are FUNDAMENTALY the search for truth.

If you find an area where science and religion dissagree, YOU ARE INTERPRETING ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH WRONG.

Sorry for trolling or spaming or whatever you whipersnappers call it.

Originally posted by Tyler 720
Fundamentaly, Religion and science CANNOT dissagree because they are FUNDAMENTALY the search for truth.

If you find an area where science and religion dissagree, YOU ARE INTERPRETING ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH WRONG.

Sorry for trolling or spaming or whatever you whipersnappers call it.

Yes, they both search for the truth
But they use entirely different methods for searching, one works, the other doesnt.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Yes, philosophy is just that a philosophy.

I just see relevance to certain things in religion to things that are being postulated by scientists.

Like how God created the universe in seven days. Time is relative is it not. Einstein postulated that time is not constant and no one has proven that theory incorrect yet. It has actually been shown to be true by atomic clocks placed in aircraft and than comparing it to ones not in motion.

So the relevance to what we perceive to see in the world as scientific fact or other theories can be explained to the time frame in which we perceive things.

I will not rule out just about anything, but I will not rule out religious ideas just because they are religious in nature.

I am but just a leaf on the wind and all possibilities are relevant and possible to my perceptions.

Like I said, I am but a leaf on the wind of knowledge.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Tyler 720
Fundamentaly, Religion and science CANNOT dissagree because they are FUNDAMENTALY the search for truth.

If you find an area where science and religion dissagree, YOU ARE INTERPRETING ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH WRONG.

Sorry for trolling or spaming or whatever you whipersnappers call it.

Yes, they both search for the truth
But they use entirely different methods for searching, one works, the other doesnt.

Your right, science can never seem to make up its mind and get anything right, it just keeps making things up as it goes. Those are the best theories...ones you can change for convienence.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by rcwj1975]

reply to post by 911stinks


Well, having been home schooled, during high school I have never believed the horse puckey of Darwinism, and that has little to do with the Christian environment.

My home was Christian, Public School was secular, I was home schooled for 9th through 12th.

Religion never entered into my thoughts when Darwin was taught, ever.

It was illogical and always has been through the use of science, logic, and a detective mentality.

That we descended from apes has and always will be an ignorant thought process to me.

That is in no way an attack on anyone thinking that way whatsoever.

If you believe it, great, if not, great, but I could care less, because it escapes logic.

Sorry, I think with logic, prior to religion, and prior to book learning.

It never made sense to me because it was illogical completely because it is not scientific fact, it is merely scientific speculation, and I'm not claiming the Big Bang happened either, nor do I support "God" creating the world in 7 days.

I believe personally, we are systematically lied to, through Divide and Conquer mentality.

In other words, Darwin is nothing more than lies through propaganda, to me.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

We still launch satelites acording to Newtons calculations, and people still gather every weekend at "church" because Jesus said so.

Science changes when it is "mathematicaly probable or logical" to do so.

Religion changes when it absolutely can't deny the facts any longer.

In this instance Science has hit a lull in its "facts", and Religion can still deny Science's "unproven" facts.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Don't you think people used to think the belief that we could fly was illogical or that we could leave the planet was illogical, yet science has achieved both of these. Science has never been in the business of following what is "logical." Just look at quantum mechanics for example. Everything about it is illogical, yet it solves many problems that classical physics doesn't answer.

sorry double post

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Tyler 720]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Also, you refer to Darwin as propaganda. Don't you think if science wanted to adopt a theory that dealt a crippling blow to religious beliefs they would accept the first theory that came along? Lamarck presented his theory of evolution before Darwin presented his and it made more sense to the common man, yet Darwin's is the theory that was adopted. Why? Because his was able to explain the data we had much more sufficiently than Lamarck and since then his theory has been added on to in order to create a much fuller picture of how evolution works. In fact, in order for evolution to be propaganda it would require every biologist in the world to be in on the conspiracy, which is logistically impossible.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Xcalibur254]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Don't you think people used to think the belief that we could fly was illogical or that we could leave the planet was illogical, yet science has achieved both of these. Science has never been in the business of following what is "logical." Just look at quantum mechanics for example. Everything about it is illogical, yet it solves many problems that classical physics doesn't answer.

Quantum Mechanics actually makes sense to me, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

And yes, I see where you're coming from, but the fact that people actually were ignorant enough to believe the Earth was flat, and at the time I would never have bought that because I've always seen through sheer idiocy, even if it was accepted logic by the masses, I am not a follower, I am a leader.

I would have agreed with Galileo Galilei, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Isaac Newton.

In other words, I would have gone against the flow, just like I do now.

UGGGGHHHHH!

"What" our children are being taught is REGURGITATED HALF TRUTHS at best..... on both ends.

The ability to contemplate our (OUR) Universe on all levels is what is needed.

Mindless memorization IS NOT THINKING!

2+2=?
A. bannana
B. 15
C. 4
D. Jesus


ARE WE INSANE?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


It is absolutely impossible to make those claims. You know how you would act based on the knowledge you have now, but considering you find the theory of evolution to be propaganda, would you not respond the same way to Kepler's theory of heliocentrism?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

It is absolutely impossible to make those claims. You know how you would act based on the knowledge you have now, but considering you find the theory of evolution to be propaganda, would you not respond the same way to Kepler's theory of heliocentrism?

It is not impossible to make claims about information I understand.

Especially if I understand how society was at those times, as I have read on them thoroughly.

I was always checking out library books about history outside of school.

I would bring twenty to thirty books to the librarian's and they would think I was nuts.

They asked who all the books were for and my answer was always they were for me.

And no, I would not have responded the same way to Kepler's theories.

There is a distinct difference from seeing and hearing propaganda and using logic.

Especially when I've always seen through dogmatic propaganda because of my understanding of warfare, military, history, you name it, one of the few things which was never discouraged in my household was learning, because it was free.

Knowledge is power, and my power has always been because of knowledge.

Nosce Te Ipsum, my family motto, Know Thyself.

I can trace my lineage back to 1066 and our family grew wealthy based on knowledge.

I believe Scientology will be next with their version of Creation, right?

Well, at the moment, MY kids are enrolled in public school. They will remain there so long as they are learning at an acceptable rate and are not being "left behind" and the like. The FIRST SIGN of trouble, and I will yank them out and teach them myself. They are in public school because my wife won the discussion anyway. Personally, I wanted to home school them from the beginning, I am a formally trained minister with a strong background in teaching my "previously prescribed faith" (Ain't it amazing when you can dig deep enough to change your own mind?)

My mother was always big on education. I had the "Wonderful World of Disney" encyclopedia series, the Dr. Seuss Series, 3-2-1 Contact Magazine, PBS, etc, etc, ad nausium.

She made sure no matter the question that "we" could find the answer. Even if findeing the answer meant reading From a Jehovah's Witness book.

I think if the parent/caregiver is earnest enough about teaching from a neutral position and Making available all aspects of the multi-faceted gem that is the body of human knowledge and understanding there is no better education. To this day, I still find myself looking things up on the internet just out of curiosity. Maybe it's crazy, but when I read a MSM story about Israel, Not only do I look here but I'll check out Islamic media and any other media I can find. That's because "somewhere" within the misinfo of all the sources is bound to be collaborating evidence of the truth and or facts. Isn't that what learning is supposed to be?
When I help my daughter with her "homework" which is these little books that she is supposed to learn "sight words" from, I make her sound them out. I completely disagree with the sight-word method but figure if I teach the phonics to her also, she will one day surprise her teachers. Besides, I guess I can tolerate the kindergarten level's "sight words".