I'll have to find where they have admitted it. But I have a list of things. I don't know weather you would want to use it cause it is a touchy topic. But when they talk about evolution they teach several theroies as correct when they have been proven wrong. Like:
JavaMan (apeman) He was only a human skull cap, three teeth and an apes femar bone, found this is the best part, in a river. Now things float down river and mix up. I'm sure there were a few fish bones around too.
Haekel's (sp) Embryo's- He admitted to using the same wood cuts to design them because he was SO sure that they were all exactly the same at the first stage when in fact at that stage they look totally different.
The Missing Link (I'm not going to try to spell it, it's the bird/reptile fossil): Birds and reptiles have two TOTALLY different bone structures, lungs, etc. It wasn't possible. It is just a totally extinct bird, someone said it was a fake any way, I don't know if that is true.
The Miller Experiment (How the earth's atmosphere was back when it started): He used Hydrogen-rich mixture of:
Methane
Ammonia
Water vapor
Which creates and organic molecule aka Embalming fluid. But also two men proved his theroy totally wrong. Their names were: Klaus Dose and Sydney Fox
Darwin's Tree (a touchy one): Darwin’s Tree does not show abrupt change. But in reality fossils show abrupt changes. The Cambrian Explosion killed Darwin’s Tree.
I'll look for the links that will show where some of the text book pulishers and writers say it is wrong. Later, you might need to remind me cause I have a short memory. Cause I have to go.
Homeschooling: The Next Generation
26 posts in this topic.
-
-
Umm... answering TN's question for her...
Public schools teach all kinds of things that have been proven wrong.
Being a die hard proponent of intelligent design versus macro-evlolution, I can tell you all kinds of things that the science books say are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.
The big ones are...
Radiocarbon dating: Known to be unreliable. Gives a range that's about 50 million years wide. Has once shown to "prove" that some bones were from a woolly mammoth were 5 million years old. Later evidence showed that the bones came from a dead circus elephant that had died in the 1950's.
This next part is the best part, trust me.
How do scientists primarily date the fossils they find?
They date them with the rocks they find the fossil in.
Thus: They find a T-rex tooth and say, "By gollies this is in a strata of cretaceous rock. This tooth is about 64.274 million years old, give or take."
It gets better though.
A geologist comes along and finds a nifty piece of granite.
"Well, look at this cool rock!" He says. "I wonder how old this is."
Looking over and seeing the happy paleontologist with his T-Rex tooth, he smiles and observes, "Well, since this rock was found next to a T-Rex fossil, it must be about 65 million years old."
Did you catch that? (I'd be shocked if you didn't) They date the fossils from the rocks and they date the rocks from the fossils.
That's one of the biggest logical fallacies called circular reasoning.
Of course, you shouldn't take my word for it. Go read these things yourselves. I might have gotten a detail wrong with that "elephant story".
XD [/rant]
But yeah, the textbooks are full of crap... -
Lol, scotty! I'd actually heard that one before, but please people, let's not let this degenerate into a science or evolution debate: go to the debate group for that. Even so, scotty, I'd be interested to know what they think of that over there.
-
OH MAN I love that, every time I hear someone tell me that I laugh, course I apologize for laughing if they believe it, but it is just so darn funny. I mean come on that just doesn't make sense. I agree with your views on the subject, but have grown weary on how I fraze things, GREAT scientist are fired everyday for thinking that God had anything to do with the making of the earth. And anyone that says Darwin was wrong is terrible. Go watch the "Expelled' Trailer, it is a movie that is going to be coming out soon. It looks really good.
-
Not terrible, just unreliable. I mean, none of those theories are necessary for evolution to be true, you can pretty much prove it's true to yourself just by thinking about it in your own head.
TN> I thought you actually meant they print something they know is wrong, and say it is in the book, not an old edition with things that have been shown to be wrong, with little scribbled notes added later saying it isn't true or something. And the Missing Link, for another thing, is a ridiculous, ignored, proven untrue so so many times, excuse for a piece of evidence that most major scientists never took seriously in the first place. I can't believe you even brought that up.
It's pretty much the same as the "at the rate that space matter is falling on the Moon, it must have been created 6000 years ago or there would be way more" theory, which, I might add, is still being used even though it was revealed to have been based on incorrect data 30 years ago, though you don't see anyone pushing the just-as-ridiculous Missing Link. -
Actually, Java Man is a big one the news even uses alot, and sense it is false they can't say man came from ape. They have NO proof. Then with Darwin's tree, with out that there is pretty much nothing to Darwin's theroy of evolving creatures.
-
I am completely against the theory of humans coming from apes!! It's absurd! If we came from apes, WHY are there still apes?!?
... Anyway, that IS loose reasoning, but I'll ask you this- Have you ever seen a wild (as in not in captivity
) human? -
I am completely against the theory of humans coming from apes!! It's absurd! If we came from apes, WHY are there still apes?!?
*gasp* The pain!
No evolutionist says we came from apes. Not. One. And if they do, they know nothing on the subject.
Allow me to draw it out for you:
Apes------------
.....................|--------Common Ancestor
Humans--------
Here is a wikipedia link to what scientist believe is the common ancestor.
Here is a link, again, wikipedia, to what natural selection. You cannot have evolution without Natural selection.
Don't you snort at me giving you Wikipedia links. I figure you need a basic understanding of what you speak of before we launch into the heavy books. Do not form an opinion of the other side until you know for yourself, from research you've done regarding the other side. That doesn't mean read or listen to what people from your side are saying about side B, it means listen, really listen, to what side B is saying. Otherwise, you sound like a, well, a loud mouth before he thinks.
Nobody wants that. Really. 
Side B's patting you on the back saying, 'That's good, that's good. We're glad you don't think that. We don't think that either.'
And humans have evolved. Those who didn't, died out. That's why there are few wild humans. Those who are 'wild' are called 'tribes'. The Yanomami are a good example of this.
[end_rant]
Now that that's over, I took an evolution class, and it has significantly lowered my faith in it. I realized how little they know, and how much of it is just guess work based on very little. The dating was painful to study because of just that, Scotty. Nearly murder. If you were to look at the fossil record, you'll notice more holes than answers. Can't help but wonder if scientists are floating to avoid them (holes), and if so, how are they floating?
Very little faith. I really think this theory will... heh... evolve into another theory completely.
However, comparing this to what the bible is saying, I think this is the more likely of the two. Read that sentence twice, my friends, before you say who's side I'm on.
I don't believe 100% of evolution. I think there are a lot of errors and plot holes and... heck, what a magnificent NaNoWriMo! But then, I could say the same about the bible.
So, I am on neither side, but I am closer to evolution than the other theories I've heard so far. Walking on the inside edge of the border, if you will, just one side step from the outside. -
I think I'd rather homeschool my kids, so they have individual attention, and so they don't have as many pressures as public schooled kids. I don't know about you, but I think high school is tough enough without having to worry about a gazillion other things.
Vet -
vet4life13 wrote:I think I'd rather homeschool my kids, so they have individual attention, and so they don't have as many pressures as public schooled kids. I don't know about you, but I think high school is tough enough without having to worry about a gazillion other things.
Vet
I agree, I'd def homeschool. No debating. -
When I'm older and I have kids of my own I will not put them in public school.
It's a poor environment (based on what all the kids I know who have gone tell me). And I don't think they really remember that much. A lot of the stuff my mom teaches me she is just relearning because she doesn't remember much of what they taught here in school.
Although, if my kids want to try it I will let them try a semester.
But really, us homeschoolers learn more then a lot of public schoolers do, and we enjoy it more, and we have better relationships with our families, and we get to explore the things we are interested in.
I love homeschooling and I see no benefits in public school.
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Delete this post?
Are you sure you want to delete this post? This cannot be undone.