Was stumped by a Creationist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

fncceo

So, get this. My daughter's 6th grade science teacher showed her class a film detailing why and how the Moon landings were faked. She was then asked to complete a worksheet detailing what she took away from the videos. Naturally, she tried to please the teacher, and said, "the facts show the Moon landings were fake." Her answer was not marked incorrect.

So, being who I am, I first showed her some material describing how we know the moon Moon landings were real and debunking the denier nonsense. I then called up this teacher after school and asked him exactly what the hell he thought he was doing, lying to children. He claimed to be teaching them critical thought (while, of course, refusing to admit that the moon landings were real). I explained to him that such a lesson would require showing cases for both, opposing stances. Then showing them why the stance that the moon landings were real was the correct stance, and how to arrive at this conclusion by applying critical thought to the presented material. Being a believer of idiotic nonsense, he, of course, was not having this. I then spoke with his bosses and explained that they could take care of this right now or hear all about it on the news.

Should I have just let this man , a teacher, lie to children and possibly do permanent damage to their critical thinking skills? Should I have just said, "oh well, not my problem"?

No. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. He is lying to the children, and he needed to be called on it. I hope he either stops immediately or loses his job.

 

[fncceo]

fncceo

So, get this. My daughter's 6th grade science teacher showed her class a film detailing why and how the Moon landings were faked. She was then asked to complete a worksheet detailing what she took away from the videos. Naturally, she tried to please the teacher, and said, "the facts show the Moon landings were fake." Her answer was not marked incorrect.

So, being who I am, I first showed her some material describing how we know the moon Moon landings were real and debunking the denier nonsense. I then called up this teacher after school and asked him exactly what the hell he thought he was doing, lying to children. He claimed to be teaching them critical thought (while, of course, refusing to admit that the moon landings were real). I explained to him that such a lesson would require showing cases for both, opposing stances. Then showing them why the stance that the moon landings were real was the correct stance, and how to arrive at this conclusion by applying critical thought to the presented material. Being a believer of idiotic nonsense, he, of course, was not having this. I then spoke with his bosses and explained that they could take care of this right now or hear all about it on the news.

Should I have just let this man , a teacher, lie to children and possibly do permanent damage to their critical thinking skills? Should I have just said, "oh well, not my problem"?

No. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. He is lying to the children, and he needed to be called on it. I hope he either stops immediately or loses his job.

Arguing vehemently with strangers over matters of belief is a bit silly. But, you're discussing your own child in what sounds like a very valid argument for home schooling. I'd be curious to know if his 'lessons' in critical thinking to pre-teens is part of the regular syllabus or his own concoction.

On the other hand, we all lie to children.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

in what sounds like a very valid argument for home schooling.

On the contrary, it's a valid argument for being involved in your child's public education.

It was his own concoction.

All lies are not equal.

 

[LittleNipper]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:

 

[LittleNipper]

fncceo

So, get this. My daughter's 6th grade science teacher showed her class a film detailing why and how the Moon landings were faked. She was then asked to complete a worksheet detailing what she took away from the videos. Naturally, she tried to please the teacher, and said, "the facts show the Moon landings were fake." Her answer was not marked incorrect.

So, being who I am, I first showed her some material describing how we know the moon Moon landings were real and debunking the denier nonsense. I then called up this teacher after school and asked him exactly what the hell he thought he was doing, lying to children. He claimed to be teaching them critical thought (while, of course, refusing to admit that the moon landings were real). I explained to him that such a lesson would require showing cases for both, opposing stances. Then showing them why the stance that the moon landings were real was the correct stance, and how to arrive at this conclusion by applying critical thought to the presented material. Being a believer of idiotic nonsense, he, of course, was not having this. I then spoke with his bosses and explained that they could take care of this right now or hear all about it on the news.

Should I have just let this man , a teacher, lie to children and possibly do permanent damage to their critical thinking skills? Should I have just said, "oh well, not my problem"?

No. It is a fact that we landed on the moon. He is lying to the children, and he needed to be called on it. I hope he either stops immediately or loses his job.

Perhaps teachers are teaching secular/pagan nonsense because they cannot even show the following:

 

[LittleNipper]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).

 

[abu afak]

There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).

Oh Look!~
Another 12 IQ Moron telling us we can't prove there's No god/a Negative.
No kidding!
Hey Dipshit..
YOU can't "prove" I'M not god.
Ho hum.
`

 

[LittleNipper]

There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).

Oh Look!~
Another 12 IQ Moron telling us we can't prove there's No god/a Negative.
No kidding!
Hey Dipshit..
YOU can't "prove" I'M not god.
Ho hum.
`

I can imagine you are like this guy once was:

 

[bripat9643]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).

Scientists don't need to prove that the creation myth never happened, just as they don't need to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

[cnm]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

 

[cnm]

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

For gods' sakes.

 

[cnm]

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Even if that were the case, what has it to do with anything? Why won't you answer?

 

[cnm]

Why is it that life appeared immediately on earth after the earth came to be?

Because it didn't.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Moses rode a dinosaur they just left it out of the bible because they didn't want to portray him as some ruffian.

 

[harmonica]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

There is no REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Adam and Eve were not Created fully formed by GOD. To believe man just appeared on his own fully formed is totally both unscientific and not Christian (unbiblical).

christians have to believe that
there is no other way

 

[Votto]

Scientists have tried to replicate life as a living cell,

So what? Scientists have also recreated fusion, which is star birth. Again, you say they failed to create an entire cell, therefore...abiogenesis is bunk? That's a ridiculous argument and a silly standard you have, once again, reserved only for a scientific theory you dislike. And your dislike for it has nothing whatsoever to do with the extant, empirical support for it, and everything to do with religious superstition. And,until you admit this, you simply are not capable of having an honest discussion about this topic.

And scientists find it quite reasonable that life as we know it formed via abiogenesis. You speak only for yourself. It is no surprise that you are not equipped to decide what is reasonable and what is not regarding this topic, as you clearly know less than nothing about it. Your opinions of what is reasonable are simply not worth much.

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

 

[Olde Europe]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

 

[LittleNipper]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:

I'm not going to watch that, sorry. But feel free to make a point or two in your own words.