'Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaurs and Get an A in Science Class!'

[Katzndogz]

People have every right to learn about Jesus. I think Evolution and Jesus should of course be taught in seperate class rooms.

The blue eyed, blonde haired version of Jesus

There is no version of Jesus. The Bible has no description of Jesus. Some say it was deliberate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Each culture is fully empowered to depict Jesus as it wishes, including the European-American.

 

[pjnlsn]

forbid teachers from penalizing students who turn in papers attempting to debunk almost universally accepted scientific theories such as biological evolution and anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change."

Its amazing how that terrifies liberals. So students can write papers debunking biological evolution and the fraud of "climate change"!

This means they can write that humans ran around with dinosaurs? Nice strawman arguement.

Fact: Evolutionists still can't explain how life is formed from an lifeless environment.

Fact: The Earth's climate has been warming since the last ice age, and has also been much warmer than it is now.

Well, a student in high school or especially elementary school would probably not know enough to 'debunk' biological evolution, given that the core is sound. It's on the fringes that developments are being made, and not by schoolchildren obviously.

The point being, you may associate the idea of the instruction of particular aspects of biology, specifically biological history, as some kind of political/coercive instrument..?

But this is not necessarily true. That some people make an ideological/free speech issue out of it is not the schoolteacher's or the student's fault.

Objectively, to say that it's fine if students don't learn that such and such is how life on earth has changed over the eons is as valid as saying it's fine if the students don't learn that the force of gravity between objects is proportional to the mass of said objects and decreases exponentially with distance. Subjectively, certain people wouldn't be able to stir up such feeling in the populace about the idea of forcing people to understand gravity, but if truth is what's important, then so are objective considerations, more so than the subjective.

 

[uscitizen]

That damned liberal Oklahoma!

 

[t_polkow]

forbid teachers from penalizing students who turn in papers attempting to debunk almost universally accepted scientific theories such as biological evolution and anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change."

Its amazing how that terrifies liberals. So students can write papers debunking biological evolution and the fraud of "climate change"!

This means they can write that humans ran around with dinosaurs? Nice strawman arguement.

Fact: Evolutionists still can't explain how life is formed from an lifeless environment.

Fact: The Earth's climate has been warming since the last ice age, and has also been much warmer than it is now.

A moment of education

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

 

[legaleagle_45]

Can I still get an A even if I claim that people and dinosaurs ran around together if I provide studies which show that birds are living dinosaurs and then go run around with some Ostriches?

 

[t_polkow]

Can I still get an A even if I claim that people and dinosaurs ran around together if I provide studies which show that birds are living dinosaurs and then go run around with some Ostriches?

Only if barney the dinosaur was involved!

 

[Old Rocks]

Then why do evolutionists attack anyone with beliefs about the origin of biological life? Especially when they have no explaination themselves?

Because they're dumbfounded, after all their years of training and education, that people can ignore their life's work, plug their ears, yell to block out things they don't like.

That makes no sense at all. Evolutionists "don't address the creation of life". So what exactly is there to ignore?

Chemists address abiogenesis. And much work has been done. If fact, the most interesting point to come out of the research is not if there is a way that life could have started, but which of many possible paths it took.