Conservapedia

[Army of GOD]

if your edits are going to be what i think they are, then i'm sure the conservapedia community will accept them with open arms

I'd have about 15 (haha, get it?) paragraphs talking about Tebow, so probably.

[PLAYER57832]

She did imply that certain interest groups would be less likely to manipulate the voter if they had more information, however.

The US Government has ultimate control over the state education provided in the US. The US Government is not going to harm its own self-interest by, say, promoting communism or fascism as legitimate political ideologies.

It's all very well to say that Christians who home-school their children are 'manipulating' their children into believing in Creationism, but by this definition 'brainwashing' is occurring within every educational system the world over. Sometimes people see the world a different way to you and they pass this on to their children, and this is okay.

No, not when it comes to science. Not when it comes to facts, in general, but science is particularly about staying independent of bias of ALL types. Without that fundamental truth, then we are truly lost.

[PLAYER57832]

If the first group of people is at 80% effectiveness and the second group of people, of whom there are many, many, many more, is at 20% effectiveness, it becomes an either/or proposition. It's funny that I've heard more news stories ad blogs and commentary about home schooled children and their "lack of education" than I have about the piss poor public education that children in many cities receive. I think maybe we need to flip that around and worry less about whether Jim Bob is learning from conservapedia.

I believe I have... and the problem is not that a few homeschoolers are teaching idiocy. The problem is a climate that makes teaching impossible lest they offend someone. When it comes to facts, there can be no offense or anger. Things are true or they are not. The world is not all opinion. Freedom does not exist in an environment without a fundamental recognition of truth. It cannot, because real freedom is not just about you or I having our way, it is about everyone having a more or less equal chance to do as they like, think as they like. Without truth, you have manipulation, not freedom.

Indoctrination to fact is not indoctrination, it is education. Teaching children how to distinguish opinion from fact is more important than any other task in education. It is that front that is failing. We have traded our education system for the proven stymied eastern system, while the east is adopting our old style more and more.

[Woodruff]

If the first group of people is at 80% effectiveness and the second group of people, of whom there are many, many, many more, is at 20% effectiveness, it becomes an either/or proposition. It's funny that I've heard more news stories ad blogs and commentary about home schooled children and their "lack of education" than I have about the piss poor public education that children in many cities receive. I think maybe we need to flip that around and worry less about whether Jim Bob is learning from conservapedia.

I believe I have... and the problem is not that a few homeschoolers are teaching idiocy. The problem is a climate that makes teaching impossible lest they offend someone. When it comes to facts, there can be no offense or anger. Things are true or they are not. The world is not all opinion. Freedom does not exist in an evironment without a fundamental recognition of truth. It cannot, because real freedom is not just about you or I having our way, it is about everyone having a more or less equal chance to do as they like, think as they like. Without truth, you have manipulation, not freedom.

Indoctrination to fact is not indoctrination, it is education. Teaching children how to distinguish opinion from fact is more important than any other task in education. It is that front that is failing. We have traded our education system for the proven stymied eastern system, while the east is adopting our old style more and more.

Woodruff did not write that.

[Army of GOD]

If the first group of people is at 80% effectiveness and the second group of people, of whom there are many, many, many more, is at 20% effectiveness, it becomes an either/or proposition. It's funny that I've heard more news stories ad blogs and commentary about home schooled children and their "lack of education" than I have about the piss poor public education that children in many cities receive. I think maybe we need to flip that around and worry less about whether Jim Bob is learning from conservapedia.

I believe I have... and the problem is not that a few homeschoolers are teaching idiocy. The problem is a climate that makes teaching impossible lest they offend someone. When it comes to facts, there can be no offense or anger. Things are true or they are not. The world is not all opinion. Freedom does not exist in an evironment without a fundamental recognition of truth. It cannot, because real freedom is not just about you or I having our way, it is about everyone having a more or less equal chance to do as they like, think as they like. Without truth, you have manipulation, not freedom.

Indoctrination to fact is not indoctrination, it is education. Teaching children how to distinguish opinion from fact is more important than any other task in education. It is that front that is failing. We have traded our education system for the proven stymied eastern system, while the east is adopting our old style more and more.

Woodruff did not write that.

As smart as PLAYER seems to be, it never ceases to amaze me how she can never get quoting correct.

[BigBallinStalin]

Very rarely do I mistaken a mirage for a portal into another universe where everything is the same as this one except they find wearing condoms on their fingers to be quite fashionable.

How about you, AoG?

[BigBallinStalin]

And, ladies and gentlemen, a big One Up for Doc Brown and his comments, which are most welcome and educational.

[Crazyirishman]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

It's quite odd reading posts like these from you while also being mooned by your avatar.

[AndyDufresne]

Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

It's quite odd reading posts like these from you while also being mooned by your avatar.

Life is always strange and fanciful.


--Andy

[john9blue]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

so how much time should we spend on the scientific theory of YEC?
how much time on the scientific theory of alchemy?
how much time on the scientific theory of the earth centered universe?
how much time on the scientific theory of the cube god?

[PLAYER57832]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

Except if you do that, then no one will believe YEC. That's why they cannot allow that.

And no, its not that peopel run away, its that the supporters of YEC so often plain ignore facts, are utterly unwilling to truly debate. They BEGIN with so much misinformation, its very, very difficult to counter unless you actually know something about science.. and far too many teachers really do not know more than just a bunch of memorized facts.

Further, so much of education today is about "teaching to the test" ... and all the testing, even in science is about memorized definitions and other facts that are great, but mean little without a full context.

For example, YEC will use some old Cladistic arguments that were considered or debated in the not to distant past, but just conveniently "forget" to mention that these were disabused... etc. BUT, go to a school board meeting and half the parents will look at you as if you are from Venus if you even say the word "Cladistic". They are clueless.

[PLAYER57832]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

so how much time should we spend on the scientific theory of YEC?
how much time on the scientific theory of alchemy?
how much time on the scientific theory of the earth centered universe?
how much time on the scientific theory of the cube god?

All actually should be mentioned.. but along with the huge reams of refuting evidence. Unfortunately, YEC tends to try and hide behind religion when it comes to criticism, but then wants to turn around and claim "science objectivity" when it comes to any criticism they want to voice about real science.

Its all very, very slick, which is why I STRONGLY advise folks in science to actually pay attention to sites like those put out by the Institute for Creation Research, various other creationist websites and what they are saying. It sounds great... if you have not been taught what the real truth is.

[PLAYER57832]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

The subjects that are taught and the opinions, sure. However, facts are facts. Math and science are based on facts. Both have specific methodology that absolutely involves questioning and thinking, but if you reject the fundamental ideas because you believe "God said so", then you are not teaching anything to do with science, it is religion. Fossils are known to be made from real animals, but if you have never seen anything but pictures or paster casts, then you might well believe when someone in authority tells you that most fossils are false. Except.. that is just a lie. Most real fossils are not fakes, are not "misunderstood". Yet, go through YEC websites and all you see are the few problems species, most of which science itself found out.

YEC has no more basis than claims that the Earth is the back of a turtle.. or made by a giant Spagghetti monster. (and go backto the ORIGINAL use of that argument if you wish to repeat it, or you will miss the entire context.. I am not repeating it here because it is old territory).

[john9blue]

so how much time should we spend on the scientific theory of YEC?
how much time on the scientific theory of alchemy?
how much time on the scientific theory of the earth centered universe?
how much time on the scientific theory of the cube god?

it should take a few minutes max to disprove the last three with our current scientific knowledge.

and the last one has no historical relevance, so it can be skipped altogether

[Woodruff]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

While I don't completely disagree with your point, the problem is time. Already as it is, far too much gets glossed over out of necessity of preparing the students for the assinine tests that determine funding.

[PLAYER57832]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

While I don't completely disagree with your point, the problem is time. Already as it is, far too much gets glossed over out of necessity of preparing the students for the assinine tests that determine funding.

And that is the problem. These tests were "advertised" and are still promoted as ways to improve education, but what they really have done is to make life difficult or quicken the expellation of teachers who really want to teach thinking instead of just rote facts.

But then, that thinking can be soo inconvenient. It did, after all cause a few problems in the 60's and 70's.

[Woodruff]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

While I don't completely disagree with your point, the problem is time. Already as it is, far too much gets glossed over out of necessity of preparing the students for the assinine tests that determine funding.

And that is the problem. These tests were "advertised" and are still promoted as ways to improve education, but what they really have done is to make life difficult or quicken the expellation of teachers who really want to teach thinking instead of just rote facts.

But then, that thinking can be soo inconvenient. It did, after all cause a few problems in the 60's and 70's.

I do actually believe the people behind the idea of "testing measures success" have good intent. I think they simply do not understand what "success" means when it comes to education.

[BigBallinStalin]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

which is why it's idiotic to say "don't teach young earth creationism in schools!" in an attempt to force children to accept your worldview by presenting no alternatives

it would be more effective to teach about young earth creationism, and then explain the advantages that evolutionary theory has over YEC. or just teach kids the scientific method, and how to properly examine evidence and draw conclusions, and they will figure it out for themselves. people try to run away from YEC, or stick their head in the sand and ignore it, instead of confronting it head-on like any other scientific theory. it's very strange.

so how much time should we spend on the scientific theory of YEC?
how much time on the scientific theory of alchemy?
how much time on the scientific theory of the earth centered universe?
how much time on the scientific theory of the cube god?

Why not leave that up to the schools to decide? Allow even the bible study groups, afternoon science camps, and what not offer their own curriculum. Then, let parents decide, and we'll get feedback from the graduates and see how it plays out.

[PLAYER57832]

I do actually believe the people behind the idea of "testing measures success" have good intent. I think they simply do not understand what "success" means when it comes to education.

I USED to think that. Now, I am not so sure, though a lot of the people who support/supported the measures did absolutely have good intent.

Then again, the "designers" of the inquisition had "good intent" as well....

In this case, like then, its more a matter of what good intent means. The inquisition came about because a lot of people, truly believed that allowing people to defy God was harmful to all (add in a lot of corruption, but there was that real intent). Here, the idea is that creating "leaders" and "thinkers" is OK for the elite, but average kids just need to read and do basic math. The problem I have is that they seem to think its an "either/or" question. Thirty years of educational research show otherwise.

[Crazyirishman]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

The subjects that are taught and the opinions, sure. However, facts are facts. Math and science are based on facts. Both have specific methodology that absolutely involves questioning and thinking, but if you reject the fundamental ideas because you believe "God said so", then you are not teaching anything to do with science, it is religion. Fossils are known to be made from real animals, but if you have never seen anything but pictures or paster casts, then you might well believe when someone in authority tells you that most fossils are false. Except.. that is just a lie. Most real fossils are not fakes, are not "misunderstood". Yet, go through YEC websites and all you see are the few problems species, most of which science itself found out.

YEC has no more basis than claims that the Earth is the back of a turtle.. or made by a giant Spagghetti monster. (and go backto the ORIGINAL use of that argument if you wish to repeat it, or you will miss the entire context.. I am not repeating it here because it is old territory).

You're missing the point my dear, look back at what the facts of math and science were in back in the olden days, a lot has changed since then. The educated people of the time would argue that the facts presented by science of that time justified a lot of shit we look back upon as stupid, just as the with the facts we are presented with today others in our future will look back upon our jackassary and have different scientific facts than what we currently have.

Also I don't know why creationists don't just say 'God caused the big bang' to circumvent the whole argument as there is no way to prove or disprove that statement

[GreecePwns]

Even then, the point is unfalsifiable and cannot be considered as a real argument in a logical debate.

[PLAYER57832]

I miss the good old conservapedia links that were at the beginning of this thread. I'm not really sure why this became an educational system debate. Whatever we consider to be truths are only truths by convention and the proper way to educate a child is subjective and will change as times changes.

The subjects that are taught and the opinions, sure. However, facts are facts. Math and science are based on facts. Both have specific methodology that absolutely involves questioning and thinking, but if you reject the fundamental ideas because you believe "God said so", then you are not teaching anything to do with science, it is religion. Fossils are known to be made from real animals, but if you have never seen anything but pictures or paster casts, then you might well believe when someone in authority tells you that most fossils are false. Except.. that is just a lie. Most real fossils are not fakes, are not "misunderstood". Yet, go through YEC websites and all you see are the few problems species, most of which science itself found out.

YEC has no more basis than claims that the Earth is the back of a turtle.. or made by a giant Spagghetti monster. (and go backto the ORIGINAL use of that argument if you wish to repeat it, or you will miss the entire context.. I am not repeating it here because it is old territory).

You're missing the point my dear, look back at what the facts of math and science were in back in the olden days, a lot has changed since then. The educated people of the time would argue that the facts presented by science of that time justified a lot of shit we look back upon as stupid, just as the with the facts we are presented with today others in our future will look back upon our jackassary and have different scientific facts than what we currently have.

Not really. You confuse science thinking/ideas with fact.

Sure, they believed that bleeding would cure people, that the sun revolved around the Earth, etc. .. and yes, were arrogant enough to insist they were facts. New evidence changed that thinking. But, 2+ 2 still equals 4. The plague does kill people.

Also I don't know why creationists don't just say 'God caused the big bang' to circumvent the whole argument as there is no way to prove or disprove that statement

The cynic's answer is that they don't do that because religion is not really and truly all this movement is about.

I have already stated that people who truly say that are taking a religious position, are acting consistantly/honestly and, even if I disagree with them, are not to be outright condemned. They absolutely have a right to that belief just like atheists have the right to believe that the universe sprung up by itself without any assistance from God.

HOWEVER, the point I have been making is that what happens in school districts, textbook approval meetings, in legislative bodies is a "debate" that is really a fundamental criticism of all of science, hidden as a religious debate or a debate over openness. Its very deceptive.

About 20 years ago, a local church was instructing kids to just keep asking "how do you know that?" Really, its a good question, a fundamental one to science and one that should be answered. The problem is that these kids were not asking experts, people who actually knew much, but average people who half slept in their science classes and promptly forgot whatever they did not use. It was like saying "hey, the local shopkeeper cannot explain why where we get our electricity, so if my pastor says a big giant gnome is creating it.. that's equally believable".

The arguments put forward by the Institute for Creation research have gotten very complex, but they are as equally flawed on a fundamental basis. Evne when they use real truth, they tend to take it well out of context or twist/expand it into something that is no longer truth.

A classic example was a statement that said something like " we studied the Echida for 4 years and found no fossil evidence", and then went on to "explain" how idiotic/deceptive the scientific establishment was to claim that this creature was part of a fossil chain. The thing is, a real scientific study might take 50 years, find nothing and STILL not claim to have found anything decisive. In fact, not finding anyting proves absolutely nothing. Its only finding things that fundamentally proves much of anything.