100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Were you taught Darwinian Theory at school? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. It absolutely has not been proven a fact whatsoever. It actually is a piss poor theory just like the theory of evolution. No facts , just theories. Fact - animals change..called evolving...we might not know why, but it's a well known fact they do... Fact - the symbiotic relationship between everything from micobs in our bodies to plants, insects, birds, animals and fish...they evolved to help each other out, like ants milking aphids for nector,while others grow gardens of mold for food... Again, we don't know how or why, we just know that they do... All it takes is a slight DNA change to change their genes and an offshoot of that animal, a sub species is born... And for the sub species to flurish, that's where the survival of the fittest comes into play... 1000's of new species are discovered every year, showing evolution is going strong.... Amazing thing is that genetic changes also occur between species, so without reproduction. That's why GM is so dangerous, and what they likely didn't think of when they began that. Weeds that grow close to GM crops have now become super weeds. The same things has occurred between other species, genetic changes between species I mean. Reading Bruce Lipton's book "The Biology of Belief", a scientist (biologist) who was considered a heretic in his field for decades because of the leading-edge things he discovered. I cannot relay it as he can of course, lol, but dang, it is interesting!! He also states that this part of "survival of the fittest" by Darwin wasn't correct, and apparently that part of Darwin has been questioned or disputed by the scientific world. I'll have to read that part again to have it sink in, hihi. But love this stuff. Glad to see you in on this too, Moe! You've been gone from the forums for way too long! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I posted is quite interesting and fact. It was in response to your quoted post. I even made it very concise without losing the essence of the point I was making. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Fri 07/06/18 04:57 PM
|
|
The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. It absolutely has not been proven a fact whatsoever. It actually is a piss poor theory just like the theory of evolution. No facts , just theories. Fact - animals change..called evolving...we might not know why, but it's a well known fact they do... Fact - the symbiotic relationship between everything from micobs in our bodies to plants, insects, birds, animals and fish...they evolved to help each other out, like ants milking aphids for nector,while others grow gardens of mold for food... Again, we don't know how or why, we just know that they do... All it takes is a slight DNA change to change their genes and an offshoot of that animal, a sub species is born... And for the sub species to flurish, that's where the survival of the fittest comes into play... 1000's of new species are discovered every year, showing evolution is going strong.... Amazing thing is that genetic changes also occur between species, so without reproduction. That's why GM is so dangerous, and what they likely didn't think of when they began that. Weeds that grow close to GM crops have now become super weeds. The same things has occurred between other species, genetic changes between species I mean. Reading Bruce Lipton's book "The Biology of Belief", a scientist (biologist) who was considered a heretic in his field for decades because of the leading-edge things he discovered. I cannot relay it as he can of course, lol, but dang, it is interesting!! He also states that this part of "survival of the fittest" by Darwin wasn't correct, and apparently that part of Darwin has been questioned or disputed by the scientific world. I'll have to read that part again to have it sink in, hihi. But love this stuff. Glad to see you in on this too, Moe! You've been gone from the forums for way too long!  love that hawt pic, btw...you look like your famous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited again for attacking others.
This is NOT about religion..Op had a simple question. What were you taught? And should the other be taught also? NOT which is right or wrong. OP offered her perspective as a Catholic STUDENT and asked what other's religions thought about what was being taught. soufie Site Admin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I went to public school. As far as I remember, we were taught evolution, in history. It was a really small part of history class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep cat same here public schools taught science based so evolution and such whether in history or the life sciences classes. i can actually remember one teacher actually commenting on the lack of creationism time. we can't cover that here. it treads to close to religion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
simple single cell life forms eventually evolved into invertebrate sea life , then to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and then man. You have missed a few steps but essentially, yes. Aerobic life evolved from anaerobic life. It happened about the same time iron started to rust. biochemists measured the precise number of differences in the DNA No they didn't. They may have made measurements of a select number of species' DNA using known markers but they couldn't examine all species' DNA, examining all markers. Refer to the Baloney detection kit. all forms of life were basically equally distant from all other forms of life genetically. I'm not sure what you mean by equally distant. Embryos for humans and other animals often look alike at certain developmental stages because they share ancient genes. These ancient genes are expressed during a middle "phylotypic period" of embryonic development for all species. Developing human, fish and other embryos therefore at times share features, such as tails and gill-like structures. Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development  Why then are not these discoveries hailed by scientists as irrefutable proof that evolution has NOT occurred? I refer you again to The Baloney Detection Kit. Particularly irrefutability and Occam's Razor. The Tree of Life has basically 3 branches  Eubacteria - True Bacteria Eukaryotes - Eukaryota, Organisms with nucleated cells Archaea - Korarchaeota, Crenarchaeota, Euryarchaeota A 4th branch but uncertain to individuality of branch is Viruses. The reason why it is called a Tree of Life is because life branches off from a trunk like limbs of a tree. Adaptation is not evolution. Viruses do not adapt anyway, they mutate. Huge difference. Adaptation and mutation is evolution. Evolution is change from one form to another. Mutation of the pristine to adapt to changing circumstances. I think what makes evolution so hard to accept is that religions teach that creation happened in six days and the world is only 6000 years old. That man was placed here by God in the form of God, which cannot change. The fossil record proves man entered after other creatures. It also proves that hominids changed over time. It is significant that there are no modern day human fossils found beside dinosaurs. However it is also significant that early hominid fossils are found by mammoths and other extinct fauna in the fossil records. Its also significant that hominid change can be tracked thru the fossil record to our current form. All which work within the Baloney Detection kit parameters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New species isn't evidence of evolution or the definition thereof. That is incorrect. Actually DNA completely declares creation/Creator. DNA is what determines whether you turn out to be a man, a mushroom, a dandelion, or a dinosaur. DNA of one human cell would fill a 1,000 volume set of encyclopedias. If the DNA in all the cells of one human were laid out in s string or line , it would reach from the Earth to the sun and back some 400 times. Wow. Only intelligent design would be plausible. the theory of intelligent design is itself implausible. the notion that the universe is so complex and perfectly ordered is decried not only by the imperfection of our own little place within it but also by it's own notion that anything so complex and perfect would need it's own creator...begging the question of who or what is the creator of the creator? and, who or what created that? ...ad infinitum 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I went to public school and my parents sent me to ccd. I have my own ideas of how I feel and I'll keep it to myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's go all out and make everyone happy and teach flat Earth as well, since we'd be digressing by teaching about god in classrooms...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
schools are for imparting knowledge.
why mix the perpetuation of beliefs with the training of rational thoughts, except as reference? that don't make nooo sense. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of a God or the big bang theory is all man made..I guess it all depends on what one believes and nothing more.I suppose it's all about just how great we are or believe we are in the whole scheme of things and yet the farther we move out into space the smaller we find ourselves becoming until we are microscopic,perhaps we are not really all that big in the first place Perhaps we are microscopic and our entire universe is just a dust bunny under the couch of something greater than we have known and our existence could cease to be if that something greater was to merely lift the couch and and sweep us away..maybe our universe is nothing more than that dust bunny but because it is all we have known we think it is more than what it really is... as we are.... or maybe I have watched too many episodes of the Twilight Zone.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of a God or the big bang theory is all man made..I guess it all depends on what one believes and nothing more.I suppose it's all about just how great we are or believe we are in the whole scheme of things and yet the farther we move out into space the smaller we find ourselves becoming until we are microscopic,perhaps we are not really all that big in the first place Perhaps we are microscopic and our entire universe is just a dust bunny under the couch of something greater than we have known and our existence could cease to be if that something greater was to merely lift the couch and and sweep us away..maybe our universe is nothing more than that dust bunny but because it is all we have known we think it is more than what it really is... as we are.... or maybe I have watched too many episodes of the Twilight Zone.. Believe it or not I understand your sentiments and might add to them concerning relativity. On the relative size of the Universe and the concept of time specifically. Our concept of time is relative to our size. I propose that we move at lightning speed compared to the Universe movement. A lifetime for us is a mere flash relative to the time duration of objects in the Universe at relative speed. Stars last millions and billions of years. Our star, the Sun will have a lifespan of around 10-12 billion years. You can fit a million Earths inside our star. Our Sun is microscopic compared to the biggest star and there are structures in the Universe that exceed that.  Our size is microscopic compared to the Earth. The Earth is microscopic compared to the Sun. The Sun is microscopic compared to VY Canis. The Sun is merely 20 galactic years old. It takes 225 million years for the Sun to orbit the Milky Way. This means that human beings have not even existed for one galactic year. Where we are right now in galactic orbit is merely 1 galactic year after dinosaurs first came to exist. Not since the went extinct but when they first started appearing. Mankind has only been using science for roughly 200,000 years. Modern science has only existed for roughly 5,000 years which also is when religion started. Insignificant is an understatement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of a God or the big bang theory is all man made..I guess it all depends on what one believes and nothing more.I suppose it's all about just how great we are or believe we are in the whole scheme of things and yet the farther we move out into space the smaller we find ourselves becoming until we are microscopic,perhaps we are not really all that big in the first place Perhaps we are microscopic and our entire universe is just a dust bunny under the couch of something greater than we have known and our existence could cease to be if that something greater was to merely lift the couch and and sweep us away..maybe our universe is nothing more than that dust bunny but because it is all we have known we think it is more than what it really is... as we are.... or maybe I have watched too many episodes of the Twilight Zone.. That thought is indeed humbling and not at all unrealistic as far as I'm concerned. We can barely even get to Mars, so what the heck do we know, lol. This concept was shown in -if memory serves- MiB, where they zoomed out, and ended up with this alien creature holding marbles in its hand, each marble being a galaxy. Sometimes looking up at the heavens can help put problems in perspective, by thinking the way you outline. If you look at all the stars you see, then how worry about XYZ? It's so small, we are so small, in just that small part of what we can see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of a God or the big bang theory is all man made..I guess it all depends on what one believes and nothing more.I suppose it's all about just how great we are or believe we are in the whole scheme of things and yet the farther we move out into space the smaller we find ourselves becoming until we are microscopic,perhaps we are not really all that big in the first place Perhaps we are microscopic and our entire universe is just a dust bunny under the couch of something greater than we have known and our existence could cease to be if that something greater was to merely lift the couch and and sweep us away..maybe our universe is nothing more than that dust bunny but because it is all we have known we think it is more than what it really is... as we are.... or maybe I have watched too many episodes of the Twilight Zone.. Believe it or not I understand your sentiments and might add to them concerning relativity. On the relative size of the Universe and the concept of time specifically. Our concept of time is relative to our size. I propose that we move at lightning speed compared to the Universe movement. A lifetime for us is a mere flash relative to the time duration of objects in the Universe at relative speed. Stars last millions and billions of years. Our star, the Sun will have a lifespan of around 10-12 billion years. You can fit a million Earths inside our star. Our Sun is microscopic compared to the biggest star and there are structures in the Universe that exceed that. Our size is microscopic compared to the Earth. The Earth is microscopic compared to the Sun. The Sun is microscopic compared to VY Canis. The Sun is merely 20 galactic years old. It takes 225 million years for the Sun to orbit the Milky Way. This means that human beings have not even existed for one galactic year. Where we are right now in galactic orbit is merely 1 galactic year after dinosaurs first came to exist. Not since the went extinct but when they first started appearing. Mankind has only been using science for roughly 200,000 years. Modern science has only existed for roughly 5,000 years which also is when religion started. Insignificant is an understatement. Awed... thank you, Tom, also for the previous post with the Tree of Life. I never studied its meaning (Kabbalah), makes a lot more sense now! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I went to public school. As far as I remember, we were taught evolution, in history. It was a really small part of history class. Thanks, Cat!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SparklingCrystal 💖💎
on
Sat 07/07/18 04:37 AM
|
|
yep cat same here public schools taught science based so evolution and such whether in history or the life sciences classes. i can actually remember one teacher actually commenting on the lack of creationism time. we can't cover that here. it treads to close to religion Thanks, Eric :) Amazing isn't it, that people within the same country -and likely in at least all first world countries- are taught completely opposing absolute truths that do not see eye to eye at all. That means that a child could be taught the evolution way as absolute truth while another child same age going to a school 20 meters down the road can be taught creationism to be absolute truth. That knowledge itself I find... not sure what the right word is. Daunting I think covers it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we we not actually taught it as an absolute truth crystal and the down the street teaching of creationism was at a parochial school tho there since i never attended i can't say if they ignored evolution totally
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That means that a child could be taught the evolution way as absolute truth while another child same age going to a school 20 meters down the road can be taught creationism to be absolute truth. In an observational deduction this cross section is small compared to a world study. However, one can surmise a likelihood. Have you posed the same question to non-dating sites? I'm curious if you get the same results? not actually taught it as an absolute truth I agree but I was circa 1960s & 70s. During that time period, opinion was mostly private and not up for public debate like it is now. It was food for thought and we didnt worry about whether anything was 'fact' or not. Evolution, biological evolution was taught in my science classes. Social evolution was taught in my history/current events classes. It was taught as a 'given'. Any questions we had that pertained to religion were referred to our churches. We were tested on the material taught in class and our beliefs were left to our religious teaching. There was a distinct separation between the course material and our beliefs. Two different things entirely. When my children were in school, they brought home their science homework. I've read their textbooks. At that time the Voyager Data was coming in pretty steady. My children were taught things about the solar system that were old data/old thinking. I knew it to be inaccurate. I helped my children disseminate between the correct answer to pass the test and the actual facts that conflicts with the correct answer. It resulted in them passing the classes but also knowing the actual facts. When I went to school we had to do class presentations. Kids brought guns, bibles and all sorts of things into the classrooms to give their presentations. There weren't protests, outcry or news coverage over it. As a matter of fact, besides saving the whales and the Vietnam conflict, I don't remember any protesting or public outcry. I wasn't looking for it but nowadays you don't have to look for it, its in your face. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That means that a child could be taught the evolution way as absolute truth while another child same age going to a school 20 meters down the road can be taught creationism to be absolute truth. In an observational deduction this cross section is small compared to a world study. However, one can surmise a likelihood. Have you posed the same question to non-dating sites? I'm curious if you get the same results? not actually taught it as an absolute truth I agree but I was circa 1960s & 70s. During that time period, opinion was mostly private and not up for public debate like it is now. It was food for thought and we didnt worry about whether anything was 'fact' or not. Evolution, biological evolution was taught in my science classes. Social evolution was taught in my history/current events classes. It was taught as a 'given'. Any questions we had that pertained to religion were referred to our churches. We were tested on the material taught in class and our beliefs were left to our religious teaching. There was a distinct separation between the course material and our beliefs. Two different things entirely. When my children were in school, they brought home their science homework. I've read their textbooks. At that time the Voyager Data was coming in pretty steady. My children were taught things about the solar system that were old data/old thinking. I knew it to be inaccurate. I helped my children disseminate between the correct answer to pass the test and the actual facts that conflicts with the correct answer. It resulted in them passing the classes but also knowing the actual facts. When I went to school we had to do class presentations. Kids brought guns, bibles and all sorts of things into the classrooms to give their presentations. There weren't protests, outcry or news coverage over it. As a matter of fact, besides saving the whales and the Vietnam conflict, I don't remember any protesting or public outcry. I wasn't looking for it but nowadays you don't have to look for it, its in your face. |
|
|
|
|
