Illegal to fail students if they believe in certain myths as opposed to facts?

David · Mar 12, 2013

Polydectes said:
Doesn't it take millions of years?

Depends of the changes you're looking at. Pond scum to human? A few billion years. Wolf to dog? A few thousand years (technically they're still wolves but the point stands). An old viral strand to new? A few months. Then you have things like breeding and genetic engendering which is evolution by design.

Stonewall · Mar 13, 2013

David said:
Depends of the changes you're looking at. Pond scum to human? A few billion years. Wolf to dog? A few thousand years (technically they're still wolves but the point stands). An old viral strand to new? A few months. Then you have things like breeding and genetic engendering which is evolution by design.

Exactly.

David · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
Exactly.

Yes but that's not what Genesis Creationists are saying. They say all life, as it is today, was created in 7 days 6,000 years ago. It's idiotic and and while I've no issue with it being taught, it needs to stay out of biology classes.

Stonewall · Mar 13, 2013

David said:
Yes but that's not what Genesis Creationists are saying. They say all life, as it is today, was created in 7 days 6,000 years ago. It's idiotic and and while I've no issue with it being taught, it needs to stay out of biology classes.

We're not speaking to Genesis Creationists or the other side complete athiests. But what should be added to biology class is the inexplicable lack of a fossil record if indeed modern man completely evolved. There would be more of a primate to human evolutionary path to follow....yet there isn't.

myp · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
We're not speaking to Genesis Creationists or the other side complete athiests. But what should be added to biology class is the inexplicable lack of a fossil record if indeed modern man completely evolved. There would be more of a primate to human evolutionary path to follow....yet there isn't.

Um... yes there is.

David · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
We're not speaking to Genesis Creationists or the other side complete athiests. But what should be added to biology class is the inexplicable lack of a fossil record if indeed modern man completely evolved. There would be more of a primate to human evolutionary path to follow....yet there isn't.

You mean aside from all the non-h. Sapien Sapien human fossils?

tecoyah · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
We're not speaking to Genesis Creationists or the other side complete athiests. But what should be added to biology class is the inexplicable lack of a fossil record if indeed modern man completely evolved. There would be more of a primate to human evolutionary path to follow....yet there isn't.

Until you spend the time to understand this topic, you will continue to seem uninformed. Though the extent of recent findings and genetic advances are rather large and complex.....a simple review of the data might be of benefit.

Stonewall · Mar 13, 2013

tecoyah said:
Until you spend the time to understand this topic, you will continue to seem uninformed. Though the extent of recent findings and genetic advances are rather large and complex.....a simple review of the data might be of benefit.

A review of what data doesn't exist is needed on your part, t. You can't explain nor have proof of your own theories. Now...that's interesting.

Stonewall · Mar 13, 2013

David said:
You mean aside from all the non-h. Sapien Sapien human fossils?

New Fossil May be ?Missing Link? in Human Evolution

All the what?

myp · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
New Fossil May be ?Missing Link? in Human Evolution

All the what?

1. That is an article from the International Business Times. Let's take the title with a grain of salt. Titles are often fluffed up in news, popsci, etc. articles for greater reactions anyway.

2. Either way, the article is not suggesting that human evolution is questionable.

3. More importantly, the researchers are not questioning it. And even more important than that, the data does not show a large gap or missing link as you seem to think it does.

4. Taxonomy is part art. There are various potential phylogenetic trees when it comes to any mammalian (or other) evolution. It comes down to statistics, but that does not make evolution questionable.

tecoyah · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
A review of what data doesn't exist is needed on your part, t. You can't explain nor have proof of your own theories. Now...that's interesting.

As I cannot logically review the things that do not exist, You have validated my point beautifully.

Thus.....I do not pay attention until I must.

Stonewall · Mar 14, 2013

myp said:
1. That is an article from the International Business Times. Let's take the title with a grain of salt. Titles are often fluffed up in news, popsci, etc. articles for greater reactions anyway.

2. Either way, the article is not suggesting that human evolution is questionable.

3. More importantly, the researchers are not questioning it. And even more important than that, the data does not show a large gap or missing link as you seem to think it does.

4. Taxonomy is part art. There are various potential phylogenetic trees when it comes to any mammalian (or other) evolution. It comes down to statistics, but that does not make evolution questionable.

What I question is the lack of a substantial amount of fossil records that clearly show this link. Why is is these finds are so rare....and don't convince anyone that theories of evolution are true.

Stonewall · Mar 14, 2013

tecoyah said:
As I cannot logically review the things that do not exist, You have validated my point beautifully.

Thus.....I do not pay attention until I must.

I really haven't ever witnessed you logically reviewing anything. I couldn't care less whether you're paying attention, troll on at your own leisure.

myp · Mar 22, 2013

Stonewall said:
What I question is the lack of a substantial amount of fossil records that clearly show this link. Why is is these finds are so rare....and don't convince anyone that theories of evolution are true.

First of all which fossils are you referring to in particular? Second, what makes you think they are any rarer than other fossils from that time period adjusted for population size, geographic distribution, and likelihood of fossil formation/bone preservation (as well as fossil distribution effects from natural disaster)?

Polydectes · Mar 22, 2013

Why should it be legal to fail a student for a religious belief?

Now remember myp, my question doesn't mean that that religious belief should be taught in school.

Can you fail a student for believing that walking under a ladder is bad luck?

Stonewall · Mar 22, 2013

myp said:
Um... yes there is.

Pretend I'm from Missouri

clarapv · Mar 27, 2013

As long as they put the right answer in their paper examinations, whatever they believe is irrelevant.
As long as they aply the right way of doing things in their jobs whatever they believe is irrelevant.
If they can present the right arguments to answer and do what is needed (either at school or work) whatever they believe is irrelevant.
See, we believe, what we think we should believe, not what is real.
When something becomes real we don't believe, we know. Knowledge comes from practice and practice comes from... aplying what is "learned" - if learning is correct.
So , no learning is completely correct - with the practice, men learn to adjust to reality. That happened when sailors sailed and found out the earth was round, not flat. We need to be "very " patient with ignorance. The fact of people believe all creation was done in 7 seven days , although ridiculous should be tolerated, as long as that is not taught at schools ( that should be totally illegal, and treated as a felony). Common sense will prevail. Someday the hidden meaning of the 7 days will be unveiled . Then we will say creation was made in seven so and so . As of today that "so and so" is yet a too complex concept to be understood for almost every person , in current day.
But there's a hidden truth in that, obviously and we shouldn't discard that information either. Intelligence is also to take advantage of the old to live and interpret the new facts and knowledge acquired.
As of today we are are acquiring a lot of new information at an incredible pace. Advanced physicists have got a kind of knowledge of reality that would be preposterous for the average person. This is the plain reality. I mean there are multiple levels of knowledge and yet it works.

tecoyah · Mar 27, 2013

clarapv said:
As long as they put the right answer in their paper examinations, whatever they believe is irrelevant.
As long as they aply the right way of doing things in their jobs whatever they believe is irrelevant.
If they can present the right arguments to answer and do what is needed (either at school or work) whatever they believe is irrelevant.
See, we believe, what we think we should believe, not what is real.
When something becomes real we don't believe, we know. Knowledge comes from practice and practice comes from... aplying what is "learned" - if learning is correct.
So , no learning is completely correct - with the practice, men learn to adjust to reality. That happened when sailors sailed and found out the earth was round, not flat. We need to be "very " patient with ignorance. The fact of people believe all creation was done in 7 seven days , although ridiculous should be tolerated, as long as that is not taught at schools ( that should be totally illegal, and treated as a felony). Common sense will prevail. Someday the hidden meaning of the 7 days will be unveiled . Then we will say creation was made in seven so and so . As of today that "so and so" is yet a too complex concept to be understood for almost every person , in current day.
But there's a hidden truth in that, obviously and we shouldn't discard that information either. Intelligence is also to take advantage of the old to live and interpret the new facts and knowledge acquired.
As of today we are are acquiring a lot of new information at an incredible pace. Advanced physicists have got a kind of knowledge of reality that would be preposterous for the average person. This is the plain reality. I mean there are multiple levels of knowledge and yet it works.

So, as long as they understand or at least know established fact...belief is unimportant.

I agree 100%.

Polydectes · Mar 28, 2013

Stool don't understand why a kid should be failed because the believe in creation.

Get a few answers wrong on a test should never cause someone to be completely failed.

myp · Mar 28, 2013

Polydectes said:
Stool don't understand why a kid should be failed because the believe in creation.

Get a few answers wrong on a test should never cause someone to be completely failed.

No one is suggesting that they fail because they get one or two questions wrong, but that if they get it wrong they get it wrong. If the evolution questions account for 31% of the test and they get all of it wrong, they may well get a D which for some schools means they have to retake the class.

Illegal to fail students if they believe in certain myths as opposed to facts?

Similar threads