This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
reflectingmonkey · 51-55, M
interesting video, thanks. somehow it reminds me of how I think it shouldn't be permitted to expose children to religious dogma because it warps their ability to think for themseves, especially with such brainwashing concepts as "you must believe without seeing" and the notion that doubting is a sin. once that sort of idea finds its way into someone's brain , especially at an early age, its almost like poisoning a tree so that its fruit never actually ripens because thinking and doubting are very closely related, to evolve one has to be able to accept the idea that he might be wrong, this is why science is based on methodological doubt.
BibleData · M
@reflectingmonkey The video was also posted in the atheist and agnostic forums.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@MartinTheFirst That's extremely poor teaching if a school says a kid should "believe" in evolution.
Better teaching would show how sedimentary rocks are formed, and how the bottom layers are always the oldest. They would show how the age of rocks can be dated via the half-life of its minerals' radioactivity.
Then they'd take the kids on excursions to see the fossil skeletons of prehistoric animals in the places where they are being excavated from the rock.
They'd show how elements (atoms) form into molecules and compounds and how molecules form into proteins, RNA and DNA. They'd show how DNA determines how an animal grows and behaves.
And then they'd show how DNA changes, and what causes some variations to survive and multiply, while others don't.
Better teaching would show how sedimentary rocks are formed, and how the bottom layers are always the oldest. They would show how the age of rocks can be dated via the half-life of its minerals' radioactivity.
Then they'd take the kids on excursions to see the fossil skeletons of prehistoric animals in the places where they are being excavated from the rock.
They'd show how elements (atoms) form into molecules and compounds and how molecules form into proteins, RNA and DNA. They'd show how DNA determines how an animal grows and behaves.
And then they'd show how DNA changes, and what causes some variations to survive and multiply, while others don't.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@hartfire
Did you know that it practically can't be proven that it works, nor is there any reason to believe that it works for anything significant unless you believe in evolution? Some types of carbon-dating they make has errors with +- millions of years according to their calculations, well what if it's less than a million years? There's also a lot of simplifying assumptions about a general equilibrium in the world which they use as a basis for carbon dating that might be completely wrong.
That has nothing to do with evolution
I understand what you're trying to say but those things are not things you can teach to a kid, you can just give them a false sense of confidence that someone smarter than them have the answers and tell them they should believe in it for that reason.
They would show how the age of rocks can be dated via the half-life of its minerals' radioactivity.
Did you know that it practically can't be proven that it works, nor is there any reason to believe that it works for anything significant unless you believe in evolution? Some types of carbon-dating they make has errors with +- millions of years according to their calculations, well what if it's less than a million years? There's also a lot of simplifying assumptions about a general equilibrium in the world which they use as a basis for carbon dating that might be completely wrong.
They'd show how elements (atoms) form into molecules and compounds and how molecules form into proteins, RNA and DNA. They'd show how DNA determines how an animal grows and behaves.
That has nothing to do with evolution
I understand what you're trying to say but those things are not things you can teach to a kid, you can just give them a false sense of confidence that someone smarter than them have the answers and tell them they should believe in it for that reason.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@hartfire Read this article and don't make the initial assumption that it's people's fossil fuel emissions that changed the environment. Is it really so farfetched that something of this nature took place before the industrial revolution? Or is it all just bullshit?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02057-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02057-4