Ask a Homeschooler

[Lighthearter]

"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.

Gyech. Forgive me but this kind of argument makes me shiver. There's a reason that "religious absolutism = BAD" is the theme of The Last Prophecy.

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

He was? Explain.

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.

Well, you're entitled to your viewpoint, but I find it just as laughable that an invisible man in the sky created all life on his lunch break then that over millenia we developed into what we are. There's no "gotcha!" proof for either, and both are laughable to the right background. But hey - if I'm entitled to my own opinion, so are you, no matter whether I agree or not.

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

I'm not sure. My brother, who is religious, isn't sure what to make of it, but a constant is that he thinks the Bible isn't necessarily literal truth. After all, it was written/translated/reprinted by men, who did all this from campfire stories and tales that were blown up with every retelling.

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.

And I find the fact that my biology course had an alternate unit to switch out for evolution insulting. Touche.

EDIT: X-post - @Drumstudent - Right. I'm done after this post.

-L

 

[GhostWriter16]

Gyech. Forgive me but this kind of argument makes me shiver. There's a reason that "religious absolutism = BAD" is the theme of The Last Prophecy.

My point was that just because Microevolution is true doesn't make macro true.

He was? Explain.

Luckymoose denied that God created the Earth.

Well, you're entitled to your viewpoint, but I find it just as laughable that an invisible man in the sky created all life on his lunch break then that over millenia we developed into what we are. There's no "gotcha!" proof for either, and both are laughable to the right background. But hey - if I'm entitled to my own opinion, so are you, no matter whether I agree or not.

Oh I agree, and I don't argue that YEC has any evidence to conclusively prove it. But neither does evolution, so believing either one is valid.

I'm not sure. My brother, who is religious, isn't sure what to make of it, but a constant is that he thinks the Bible isn't necessarily literal truth. After all, it was written/translated/reprinted by men, who did all this from campfire stories and tales that were blown up with every retelling.

Hmm... Interesting how Paul takes the time to tell how the Bible is in fact the literal truth.

And I find the fact that my biology course had an alternate unit to switch out for evolution insulting. Touche.

Why?

 

[sophie]

See this is my problem with homeschooling. Because the student learns from a parent, who may not necessarily be qualified or knowledgeable enough to transmit all the information on a particular subject, you get problems in which people convince themselves that there is "no evidence" for evolution and that it is "just a theory" when these thoughts are, in fact, completely wrong.

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.

Why? Where is your evidence?

Moderator Action: A pretend effort to get back to topic.

 

[Bill3000]

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.

Well, it's quite easy for me to ace tests in classes with horrible teachers, especially since horrible teachers tend to give easy tests to make up for their poor teaching skills. ("THIS TEACHER IS AWESOME BECAUSE HIS CLASS IS EASY") How do you know that your parents aren't spoonfeeding you, or aren't affected by the bias that you are their child in grading you?

 

[Lighthearter]

Well, it's quite easy for me to ace tests in classes with horrible teachers, especially since horrible teachers tend to give easy tests to make up for their poor teaching skills. ("THIS TEACHER IS AWESOME BECAUSE HIS CLASS IS EASY") How would you know that your parents aren't spoonfeeding you, or aren't affected by the bias that you are their child in grading you?

Because they're not the ones grading me? It's a correspondence high school - I mail my tests in for grading by their staff.

-L

 

[Holycannoli]

I'm not sure. My brother, who is religious, isn't sure what to make of it, but a constant is that he thinks the Bible isn't necessarily literal truth. After all, it was written/translated/reprinted by men, who did all this from campfire stories and tales that were blown up with every retelling.

No it's not absolutely literal, or else we wouldn't be able to call anyone "father" and other such nonsense. The Old Testament in particular cannot be read literally in many cases (and Jesus in fact preached against taking some things literally and thus incorrectly, like when he said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath). Somehow though some christians centuries ago did get the idea that it was literal, not realizing that there's also problems in translations. What they're taking as literal may have a different meaning than they think, and over time there's been so many translations and changes to the Bible that there's many denominations all with different literal truths.

That's going off topic though, and the only way I can relate it to the OT is to say that it's wrong if kids are being taught that it's 100% literal through and through.

 

[uppi]

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

Yeah, but they're usually called birds nowadays.

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

So why do you reject the literal biblical timeline? Does that mean, the rest of the bible is also not true? And how do you arrive at 8-15 thousand years anyway, despite all contrary evidence?

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

Please turn of your computer now, as that one is also based on theories without conclusive proofs.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

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

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!

And there's the problem with your homeschooling, you've been lead to believe a less extreme form (but just as insidious) as the rubbish that dommy spouts in every thread he inhabits, i.e. that evolution does not happen. And yes this does have a lot to do with homeschooling, as it shows the amount of bull droppings that homeschoolers can be fed without those doing the feeding getting into any trouble over indoctrination and outright lieing.

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

But wasn't Revelations just simply John experiencing a bad shroom trip on top of an empty stomach from many days' fasting. You know the kind of thing that people tend to dream up when they put their body to extreme tests like what John of Patmos did before getting his religion.
Also quite a lot of Christian denominations down through history didn't take it as part of the Bible, and also the Prophesies contained within it were supposed to be fairly immediate (i.e. that they would take place in the next few years). I think the fact that we've lasted nearly 2000 years without them happening pretty much invalidates them.

Moderator Action: Another "fake" attempt to talk about homeschooling.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, but they're usually called birds nowadays.

No I mean literal dinosaurs.

So why do you reject the literal biblical timeline? Does that mean, the rest of the bible is also not true? And how do you arrive at 8-15 thousand years anyway, despite all contrary evidence?

We have no idea how old the Earth is based off the Bible, only that it was created in 6 days. And genealogies were often done with generation gaps.

Egypt is usually said to have spawned around 3500 BC, which is probably accurate, which means the Tower of Babel probably happened in about (Give or take) 4500 BC. So the flood probably happened around 5,000 BC, and Earth was probably created somewhere around 6,000 BC. About 8,000 years old. Though its impossible to know that with absolute certainty.

Moderator Action: Homeschooling is a long way from his mind.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Really, how many career paths have a direct bearing on one's belief in how the world was created? Damned few. So why do homeschooling conversations always zero in on that?

Because schooling is more than simply preparing someone for their career. Still doesn't make it a big deal though. Does something have to be a big deal before anyone should to make it an issue? In that case, close this site right now. How many career paths have a direct bearing on discussions here?

Knowledge in any shape or form is great. Bible studies are great. Even biblical studies which have religious input are great.

Teaching Young Earth Creationism is a small part in a wide, broad field of education that goes against the principle of education. It ignores factual knowledge. It teaches proven nonsense. Sorry to be blunt. If people want to believe in it, fine. If they want to teach their children this, I feel sorry for the children, but fine. But I do have the right to be pissed off at it. Even if it doesn't help one single itty little bit.

It's like being pissed of at people who don't use their indicators, they still won't no matter how many times I post here they should.

Moderator Action: Nice attempt to rescue the thread.

 

[bhsup]

It ignores factual knowledge. It teaches proven nonsense. Sorry to be blunt. If people want to believe in it, fine.

Well here's the rub. Can you absolutely prove with your science that God did NOT create the earth and all creation some 6-7 thousand years ago and set it up so it looks like the universe is 14 billion years old, earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so forth as a test of faith? Can science PROVE that did not happen? yes or no, don't equivocate, yes or no. Until you can answer "yes", it is not proven nonsense.

 

[Karalysia]

Well here's the rub. Can you absolutely prove with your science that God did NOT create the earth and all creation some 6-7 thousand years ago and set it up so it looks like the universe is 14 billion years old, earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so forth as a test of faith? Can science PROVE that did not happen? yes or no, don't equivocate, yes or no. Until you can answer "yes", it is not proven nonsense.

Yes....

 

[bhsup]

Let's back that up.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Put me down for a yes too.

However, no scientific theory can be proven 100% true. See: Gravity.

 

[Gigaz]

What is logic but a good feeling . I guess with the right technology and a cable in your brain I could make you strongly believe that 1=2.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

1=2 in the ring with one element. Of course, 1=everything else there too

EDIT: Which is why we usually add an extra rule saying 1 does not equal 0 for interesting algebraic structures.

 

[W|M]

Let's back that up.

Everything is moving away from us at a faster and faster rate, suggesting big evidence for a huge expansion.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Well here's the rub. Can you absolutely prove with your science that God did NOT create the earth and all creation some 6-7 thousand years ago and set it up so it looks like the universe is 14 billion years old, earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so forth as a test of faith? Can science PROVE that did not happen? yes or no, don't equivocate, yes or no. Until you can answer "yes", it is not proven nonsense.

Yes and it's called a fossil trail. Then we've also radiometric dating and mitochondrial (sp?) DNA traces to back it up. If god set it up the way you say above, then he's just being a dick and if he exists and is like that then I've not time for him.

 

[bhsup]

Caused by???

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well here's the rub. Can you absolutely prove with your science that God did NOT create the earth and all creation some 6-7 thousand years ago and set it up so it looks like the universe is 14 billion years old, earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so forth as a test of faith? Can science PROVE that did not happen? yes or no, don't equivocate, yes or no. Until you can answer "yes", it is not proven nonsense.

Test of faith? Really.

That would be a test of faith as in: whoever keeps believing this bullwax about the Earth being 6000 years old despite all the evidence I planted to show them otherwise really are not worthy of heaven.

I can't answer yes to the intent of your question, but I can answer yes to your question. Simply because the cop-out God is all powerful. But I disagree that by not answering yes (to the intent) all that YEC stuff is not proven nonsense. Because that would require a different definition of the word "proof" than is accepted.

"Proof" does not mean the ability to make 100% certain of something including the possibility of supernatural beings.