Ask a Homeschooler

[Luckymoose]

I thought you were a Catholic? Why do you think the chances of the world being created by God are faint? Your religion demands he did, at least somehow.

My Young Earth Creationist beliefs are based off Genesis 1. If YEC is not true, then Genesis 1 is not true. Nor is at least part of Genesis 2.

I was a Catholic until Middle School. I made my own decisions related to becoming an Atheist, based on my interest in history and sciences. The church doesn't consider the Bible literal and it's to be interpreted as such. My time with the church, which is still ongoing as I remain friends with my priest and do attend, though I do not believe. It is mostly for the lulz. I've met with Bishops who believe that the Bible is nothing but a story to help us understand the complexity that is creation. Days in God's time is never to be considered days in our time. Etc. The flood isn't literal either. I've spent my time learning about both sides and have accepted the truth in science. Even the church says that alien life is a very possible outcome, why can't the extremist protestant denominations accept science?

Moderator Action: LM runs with the opportunity.

 

[GhostWriter16]

They would still have to believe God created the Earth. Not necessarily without evolution. But the term "Creationism" only implies you believe God created Earth, not how long it took or by what method.

Moderator Action: ...and so it continues.

 

[W|M]

They don't teach creationism in my crazy Catholic school.

Moderator Action: Weak attempt to bring back education to the front.

 

[Luckymoose]

They would still have to believe God created the Earth. Not necessarily without evolution. But the term "Creationism" only implies you believe God created Earth, not how long it took or by what method.

Creationism is not the creation of Earth, it is the creation of the Universe. Believing we are so unique and special is such a foolish approach. It really aches me to see people being taught such closed minded studies to the world.

Moderator Action: Religion not education. LM introduces "foolish" to the conversation.

 

[NBAfan]

I thought you were a Catholic? Why do you think the chances of the world being created by God are faint? Your religion demands he did, at least somehow.

My Young Earth Creationist beliefs are based off Genesis 1. If YEC is not true, then Genesis 1 is not true. Nor is at least part of Genesis 2.

His views do not reflect what the Church teaches.

A lot of catholics don't believe in the entire Old Testament, or Revelations.

A lot of the OT and Revelation is symbolic, but that doesn't mean Catholics just ignore it.

Moderator Action: The religion theme is picked up by others.

 

[Atlas14]

I disagree there is "Loads of evidence," and actually believe the evidence is against it, though it is not proven false. I don't believe it also because it is at odds with my religious beliefs.

But you say you suck at science. So how can you confidently make an educated decision to not believe it? I mean there are textbooks, courses, and degrees, and professional fields based entirely on Evolution, which could not be accomplished without sufficient, peer-reviewed sort of evidence and discourse.

I realize the example I'm about to give is different since Evolution is a different field of study and theory, but here goes.

When some astrophysicist mathematical genius proposes a strongly accepted theory for some cosmological law, why would I have the intellectual capacity, tools, and knowledge to confidently not believe whatever they propose? I suck at math. I was mediocre in physics. I know almost nothing about the universe other than some random factual stuff I've read in casual books. I haven't taken any serious courses on the subject, nor have I performed any independent research relating to the subject.

You see what I am getting at? I know your holy book might lead you to believe dinosaurs never actually existed or man existed at the same time as dinosaurs, and Earth was created by an eye in the sky 6,000 yrs. ago, but it does not hold up to academic, logical, or professional standards of accuracy. The theory of evolution does.

Moderator Action: So now evolution comes into play.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I believe dinosaurs walked with man, and there is evidence a few are still out there.

And I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, a more logical guess is 8-15 thousand.

And evolution is a theory without conclusive proof, so I'm free not to believe in it.

Moderator Action: Dom is now fully engaged in defending his anti evolution beliefs. Home schooling is long gone.

 

[Luckymoose]

I believe dinosaurs walked with man, and there is evidence a few are still out there.

And I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, a more logical guess is 8-15 thousand.

And evolution is a theory without conclusive proof, so I'm free not to believe in it.

What happened to all the dinosaurs if they were here just several thousand years ago? What happened to all the other creatures? The 99% of life forms that have lived on this planet that are now extinct.

Evolution is an observable FACT. You can go to your local university and watch stuff evolve under the microscope.

Moderator Action: The new topic continues.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What happened to all the dinosaurs if they were here just several thousand years ago? What happened to all the other creatures? The 99% of life forms that have lived on this planet that are now extinct.

I would presume most of them died soon after the flood. I would presume some of them were simply invented by man to prove evolution.

Evolution is an observable FACT. You can go to your local university and watch stuff evolve under the microscope

MICROevolution is an observable FACT. MACROevolution is a fairy tale.

Moderator Action: ...and continues.

 

[W|M]

I believe dinosaurs walked with man, and there is evidence a few are still out there.

And I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, a more logical guess is 8-15 thousand.

And evolution is a theory without conclusive proof, so I'm free not to believe in it.

1) There is conclusive evidence of dinos being around hundreds of millions of years before people.

2) Still completely illogical.

3) There is conclusive proof for evolution, study a bit on the Galapagos.

EDIT: X-Post.

I would presume most of them died soon after the flood. I would presume some of them were simply invented by man to prove evolution.

4) Dino bones appeared before Darwin's book, and even if most of them died in a huge flood, they would still be around.

MICROevolution is an observable FACT. MACROevolution is a fairy tale.

5) If by fairy tale, then you mean fact, then you are correct (after all, you believe in fairy tales yourself!)

 

[Luckymoose]

I would presume most of them died soon after the flood. I would presume some of them were simply invented by man to prove evolution.

What flood? There is no proof of a world wide flood. Why wouldn't God tell Noah to collect the dinosaurs? How did Noah gather all the animals from across the oceans on other continents to put on his Ark? We don't fake fossils to prove anything. That's a creation of the YECs.

MICROevolution is an observable FACT. MACROevolution is a fairy tale.

Microevolution is the leading cause of Macroevolution. Oh snap. I just went there. You just confirmed that you believe in evolution. /thread.

 

[sophie]

MICROevolution is an observable FACT. MACROevolution is a fairy tale.

Wait, I don't understand this. Macroevolution is the accumulation or result of Microevolution over the course of hundreds of thousands of millions of years. As Lucky said, if you believe in Microevolution you HAVE to believe in Macroevolution. To say you believe in Microevolution but not in Macroevolution is not you making steps towards sanity, but really you showing the clear lack of knowledge in basic biology.

 

[W|M]

Luckymoose receives a 50 billion dollar prize for making Dommy confirm he believes in evolution!

 

[Lighthearter]

THANK YOU!

I thought you were a Catholic? Why do you think the chances of the world being created by God are faint? Your religion demands he did, at least somehow.

My Young Earth Creationist beliefs are based off Genesis 1. If YEC is not true, then Genesis 1 is not true. Nor is at least part of Genesis 2.

Well I was always taught by my CATHOLIC church and parents that God created the universe and the world - in the same timeframe as science says, mid you - but that He guided evolution since then to get the "end result" that we have now. And may still be "playing God" which actually makes a lot of sense

And not necessarily are they not true, as I just demonstrated. But I also want to say that when I read up on Agnosticism and thought about it and decided that it was for me more then Catholicism my parents smiled and accepted my change. In fact, I've gotten to understand my dad a lot better since then, as I apparently inherited my religious views from him.

A bit off-topic, but that's my perspective. I'm an unusual person in that I am perfectly capable of debating religious views in a religious manner while not believing any of it. I would be happier if more people on the religious side could do the same with science.

And remember: learning it isn't the same as accepting it/converting.

-L

Moderator Action: The thread is completely astray from Homeschooling.

 

[Verarde]

Why do you believe so, outside of the fact that they are your parents?

Mainly the fact that I score high on many of my tests. I will rarely hit 80s, and am in the 90s for all my classes.

And I believe more in Old Earth Creationism than Young Earth. Dinosaurs, that kinda such convince me.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, I don't understand this. Macroevolution is the accumulation or result of Microevolution over the course of hundreds of thousands of millions of years. As Lucky said, if you believe in Microevolution you HAVE to believe in Macroevolution. To say you believe in Microevolution but not in Macroevolution is not you making steps towards sanity, but really you showing the clear lack of knowledge in basic biology.

"Hundreds of Thousands of Years" is a meaningless phrase to a YEC. My hypothesis is that while microevolution (Evolution within a kind) can happen, this does not translate to macroevolution, or evolution from one kind of an animal to another. For instance, I believe the ark only had 2 dogs on it, and that all the dogs in the world came from those two, but that two dogs will never make a non-dog.

Luckymoose receives a 50 billion dollar prize for making Dommy confirm he believes in evolution!

Well I was always taught by my CATHOLIC church and parents that God created the universe and the world - in the same timeframe as science says, mid you - but that He guided evolution since then to get the "end result" that we have now. And may still be "playing God" which actually makes a lot of sense

Yes that does work, however, Luckymoose was saying that the world wasn't created, not merely that it was created through evolution.

While possible, I would say Theistic Evolution stretches the Biblical account quite a bit. The thing is, I'm not convinced that Evolution is scientifically proven, so for me, I accept the Biblical account.

And not necessarily are they not true, as I just demonstrated. But I also want to say that when I read up on Agnosticism and thought about it and decided that it was for me more then Catholicism my parents smiled and accepted my change. In fact, I've gotten to understand my dad a lot better since then, as I apparently inherited my religious views from him.

Just curious, but how do your parents interpret the final 3-4 chapters of Revelation?

A bit off-topic, but that's my perspective. I'm an unusual person in that I am perfectly capable of debating religious views in a religious manner while not believing any of it. I would be happier if more people on the religious side could do the same with science.

And remember: learning it isn't the same as accepting it/converting.

Oh I'm well aware, I just hate when things like Evolution are talked as a fact that is infallible and can't be wrong. I have ZERO PROBLEM with them teaching you "The theory of evolution teaches this..." which would be a fact, but the theory itself may be false, and at least in America a lot of people don't believe in it, so it being taught as fact I find silly and insulting.

 

[Luckymoose]

Yes that does work, however, Luckymoose was saying that the world wasn't created, not merely that it was created through evolution.

The world was clearly created, through an accretion disk. I never said evolution had anything to do with the beginning of life or the creation of the planet. You are outright ignoring me to cover your own illogic.

Also a scientific theory is NOT the same as a conventional theory. Your being bad at science is showing.

 

[sophie]

"Hundreds of Thousands of Years" is a meaningless phrase to a YEC. My hypothesis is that while microevolution (Evolution within a kind) can happen, this does not translate to macroevolution, or evolution from one kind of an animal to another. For instance, I believe the ark only had 2 dogs on it, and that all the dogs in the world came from those two, but that two dogs will never make a non-dog.

What? Why? How did you refute what I said, which is that Macroevolution is just Microevolution accrued over a much longer period of time (do note, that this refers to generations, not necessarily years). You can't just say "Hundreds of Thousands of Years" is meaningless, where's your evidence that this is meaningless?

 

[Verarde]

Guys, take this somewhere else please. This is a thread to ask questions to homeschoolers, not have cat fights about evolution. I believe in micro, not macro, OEC, not YEC, and I am a homeschooler. Moving on!

Moderator Action: Well finally, someone states the obvious and asks for the original topic back.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What? Why? How did you refute what I said, which is that Macroevolution is just Microevolution accrued over a much longer period of time (do note, that this refers to generations, not necessarily years). You can't just say "Hundreds of Thousands of Years" is meaningless, where's your evidence that this is meaningless?

Microevolution (Evolution within a kind or type) does not necessarily prove macroevolution (Evolution from kind to kind or type to type) to be an accurate idea. Its an assumption.

Moderator Action: Dom ignores his angel.