Wednesday, November 23, 2022

There are Other Debates Too


HomeSchooling, Germany and US · Other Thread Under Same Video · When bullies and bullied are both stuck in the same school ... · There are Other Debates Too

Max Xos
One major aspect of forbidding homeschooling in my oppinion is that the children are "confronted" with different oppinions and views early on (through teachers, friends and their families etc.).
This means that children learn to tolerate other views to a degree. Which is an important part for society in my book. For me it looks like it is very common in these days in the US that many people do not accept that other people have a different viewpoint (political or religous and others ...) and it is all to often that they try to force their own views on others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This means that children learn to tolerate other views to a degree"

I have seen so much how public school educated people (except the minority who are creationist) get intolerant of both creationism and homeschooling.

"Which is an important part for society in my book."

Whatever value there is in teaching tolerance is best served by allowing homeschooling and by allowing both bully victims and bullies to leave school, or more properly allow bullies to get kicked out of school (no chance of "see if you make progress if we give you hours with a shrink" cop-out).

Wolf842
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "I have seen so much how public school educated people (except the minority who are creationist) get intolerant of both creationism"
Yeah, funny how education makes people intolerant of blatant bullshit... Kind of like finding out that the "truths" someone has been telling are actually demonstrably false makes you distrust them. Funny how that works, huh?

I will however agree that bullying isn't dealt with anywhere near enough. But just taking either bullies or their victims completely out of school is a terrible idea. Victims can at worst still go to another school, there is zero reason to rob them of everything a good school gives them. And even when it comes to the bullies themselves - they're still children and don't know any better, why should some mistakes ruin their future chances this badly? What needs to happen much more is that teachers are held responsible for any bullying going on while the children are entrusted to them for not only a good education, but also for their physical and mental well-being.

RustyDust101
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Err, yeah, if there are obvious falacies, both logical and factual, in creationism then pointing those fallacies out, isn't only a necessity, but relevant. In this case it is not intolerance of creationism per se, it is the inacceptance of falsehood as truth. As such, yepp, that is an incredibly good thing to achieve.

Friedrich der Große
State indocrinating my kids is an "important part of society"??? Not buying that argument, unless you can prove to me that German schools are light-years ahead of American schools.

A case MIGHT be made for Finland, but not Germany.

Bimbelimbim
I very tricky topic. From sciences point of view, a devine theory can quite litterally not exist, because it does not meet one of the fundamental requirement for a scientifist theory. It offers no angle of attack to disproof it, and that is an axiom to all scientic works. From religions points of view, well I can not really emphasize with any of it, so explaining it is beyond me.
But there is an other objective point beyond both religon and science in my mind: Science has lead to groundbreaking improvements for mankind in recent history at a hitherto unseen pace in history. It completely changed the world we live in and that overall for the better. People live longer, war is no longer such a common occurence, many deseases can be treated, and many other problems that used to exist in everyday live do so no more. Religion on the other hand has nothing to show for it. While christianities values were certainly novel 2000 years ago, christianity did not manage to improve life anywhere close as much as science has, even though science only had a fraction of the time christianity had to affect changes.
This is why I personally have dedicated my life to science, because It seems to be the superior concept. It may be a shallow arguement, but the only one I can give outside of science and religion and only that validates it to judge the question.

John Scaramis
@Friedrich der Große "State indocrinating my kids" Tell me what your mindset is without telling what your mindset is. State indoctrination is usually an argument from people who are e.g. shouting out loud in public whithout gettin arrested (!) that their opinion is opressed and censored, while they themselves would censor any other opinion if they had the power.

Wolf842
@Friedrich der Große Since you're the one who started the whole "state indoctrination" thing, I'll ask for your hard evidence to support that claim first.

Andrew Mattox
@RustyDust101 , Logical fallacies should be pointed out. Formal debate is what I personally believe is missing (from US education).
There are also logical fallacies with Atheism. Those should be pointed out as well.

The most "logical" standpoint is actually being Agnostic (we don't know).

Just a random techpriest
@Wolf842 I've never seen any of that except for a subset of creationist beliefs be disproven
Not every different type of creationism? Because their are multiple

Wolf842
@Andrew Mattox "There are also logical fallacies with Atheism."
Name one. Even just a single one will do just fine. It should be really easy since there apparently are several.

Andrew Mattox
@Wolf842 , "It isn't raining right now, so it must never rain."
^Your argument.

Wolf842
@Just a random techpriest Well, the creation story from the Silmarillion hasn't been disproven for example, so sure. But that's not what the vast majority of people mean when they say "creationism". So if you mean anything else than the biblical "the order of creation happened as described in Genesis", you'll have to be more specific - and explain in what way your version is of any importance to the discussion.

Wolf842
@Friedrich der Große "How about the state-sponsored wokeism?"
Not happening here in Germany.
"Teaching very young kids inapropriate things about sex?"
No idea what your criteria are for "inappropriate" or "very young kids", but I've never heard of anyone here in Germany complaining about what's taught in schools in this regard. At least not for about half a century.
Grooming the kids?"
Also not happening here in Germany.

Some small part of your complains about history/geography arguably applies to Germany, too, but without internalizing some facts, there is no basis to build on for any more in-depth stuff. It's much easier to teach about motivations and passions by teaching how and why they may have developed - what circumstances may have led to them, or at least contributed.

As for math and the "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) - what I wrote above applies even more here. What's the "passion" behind the Theorem of Pythagoras - and why does it matter? What good would it do talk about that? Same questions for Einstein and his e=mc², ...
Kind of hard to teach advanced calculus without knowing how addition, multiplication, ... work. Kind of hard to teach about complex chemical reactions without knowing about at least the basics of electron models, and how they apply to all the various elements. You need to drill the basic stuff into your head if you want to understand the more complex stuff.
None of the science stuff even actually qualifies as "indoctrination" - since there is no DOGMA.

So while some may very well apply to the USA (and from what I've heard and read and all that, indeed does in some parts, which is atrocious enough), pretty much none applies to Germany. So by those criteria, German schools are massively ahead of at least some (too many) schools in the USA.

Wolf842
@Andrew Mattox The guy I was responding to complained about HIS kids getting indoctrinated. So your commentary is about as on-point as if you'd written something like, "Oh, yeah, and don't forget about regular human sacrifices! Afterall, the Aztecs did it!"

Andrew Mattox
@Wolf842 , You asked for examples of government indoctrination.
Recent/Current examples have been provided.
The Communist regimes are still doing this today: China, North Korea.

I am literally only going back 100 years to today. Which is not very long on "government" timetables.

Wolf842
@Andrew Mattox Okay, yes, technically, you're correct. If you completely, utterly ignore the context that I was responding to someone who was talking about current Germany and USA. Kind of... like the video.
But I guess if getting your point across to "win" is more important than making an actually relevant, let alone valuable, contribution, you did a great job. But only then.

Andrew Mattox
@Wolf842 , Now we get to my actual point.
Why doesn't this occur in the USA and Germany today?
Because people are allowed to and encouraged to question the "state".

The blind rage in this thread towards someone who doesn't want their kid to be indoctrinated by the state is a perfect example of people who don't ask questions.

What is it about the state education system that causes some to ask questions or have doubts?

Here in the US, we have examples of teachers encouraging kids to get "transition surgeries" behind the parent's backs. The examples are few and far between. But they still exist.
School boards in these examples are ignoring the parents concern regarding what the parents consider "child grooming".

Wolf842
@Andrew Mattox "The blind rage in this thread towards someone who doesn't want their kid to be indoctrinated by the state"
No. There is a massive difference between "doesn't want their kid to be indoctrinated" and "claims that the state is indoctrinating their kid". The former is commendable, the latter is a massive claim that needs solid evidence - and without any, it's just despicable conspiracy theorist craziness.

@Andrew Mattox Also, he was making that claim about the state indeed indoctrinating kids as a complete generalization (which he even made explicit in later comments), i.e. he made that claim not just about all schools in the USA, but about all schools in Germany as well (and basically the entire world).
I could have excused that as just badly communicating his view, but considering his later comments, it at least looks very much like he actually meant it that way.

Friedrich der Große
@Wolf842 Alas. I have no experience with German schools. The schools I attended in the US as a kid were so boring that I eventually went beyond them.

I flunked math in 4th grade, but during the summer between 4th and 5th grades, something happened, and I was doing algebra before 5th grade started, and it was a rapid acceleration right up to calculus by age 13. How is this possible? The passion that I had. I was also reading college-level chemistry, physics, and biology in the same timeframe -- passion for mathematics and science. Pythagorean Theorem? That was nothing compared to what I was doing, except it helped me to understand sin,cos, and tan.

The question is, how can we ignite that same passion in the kids we teach? I managed to do that with both of my kids. They saw my passion and the passion caught on.

Public schools have an institutionalized knack for destroying passion and curiosity in the kids. I suspect the same to be true in Germany as it is in the US, and perhaps nearly all schools in the Western World with some noted exceptions.

Math is taught with canned and "sanitized" examples, and you are drilled into a rigid approach to get to the "answer" -- AND you are expected to "show your work".

What happens when you raise a number to a negative power? Or even a fractional power? I was seeing that in the physics textbooks I was reading, but was not touched on at all by my 5th grade teacher. And, she was annoyed at me when I would correct the bad science she was teaching the kids.

I should not be smarter than the teachers, and that has always gotten me into trouble. They did not teach with much passion, and used the typical rigid approaches.

At home, I tried a lot of things out with mathematics, did experiments with physics and electronics in the basement and my bedroom, and read a LOT of books.

If we can ignite that level of passion in kids in general, there won't be so much of a need for schools anymore, especially with today's Internet. Back in the 70s when I was a kid, I grew up in a very knowledge-poor environment, but I found a couple of gems at the public and school libraries, and cherished them. I sometimes wonder just how much further I would' have gone if I had today's Internet back then.

Wolf842
@Friedrich der Große "Public schools have an institutionalized knack for destroying passion and curiosity in the kids."
To varying degrees, yes, I very much think the same. From what I know, it's got to do with the history of how and why schools were set up, to get the vast majority of people prepared for the jobs they'd end up doing (except for the rich and/or really good ones who'd get a better education, and the really stupid ones who'd barely get any education and only got prepared for the most basic jobs).

"I suspect the same to be true in Germany as it is in the US"
Why bring in the United States of Mexico here?
Oh, you mean the USA... 😜
But yeah, this is where you're wrong. Going with both your criteria/descriptions as well as what I've heard and read of public schools in the USA, the difference to German public schools is pretty massive if you look at the average.

I also find it quite interesting that you didn't even address what I wrote about.. well, pretty much any of the points from my previous response to you. I try to address at least the major points that you bring up, I expect the same basic courtesy in return.

Mjoelnir
Hans-Georg Lundahl Teaching creationism as a science is exactly why homeschooling is so dangerous. Creationism is not science. If they teach it at sunday school or marked as a religions believe system, that is something else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Mjoelnir OK, apart from questions about damnation and salvation, which you arguably don't believe in anyway, what's "dangerous" about it?

If you are doing medicine, fake science can do huge harm.

But creationist origins science or evolutionist origins science, it's still curiosity about origins, not something immediately useful for human either collective or individual survival.

"Creationism is not science."

The science part is about showing how every scientific fact actually either observed or correctly deduced either supports or at least is compatible with the Biblical narrative. This is not just a repetition of it, and it does involve the use (even if you would argue it's abuse) of scientific knowledge.

Mjoelnir
@Hans-Georg Lundahl For me it is strange to hear anybody talking about creationism as science. It is the anthem of science. It defines the outcome at the start. It takes a biblical story, religion, and tries to fit observations to it. If observations do not fit they are ignored.
The scientific way is to start with the observation and than develop a theory that fit all the observations.

I am completely against, that people are allowed to teach impressionable children such nonsense as science. Teach it as religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Mjoelnir "If observations do not fit they are ignored."

As far as I have gathered with Creationists who are Scientists - this is often the case with Evolutionists when they cherry pick dates.

"develop a theory that fit all the observations."

That fitS them - but what if Creationism already fits all the actual observations?

"I am completely against, that people are allowed to teach impressionable children such nonsense as science. Teach it as religion."

That's pretty much how I feel about teaching impressionable children Evolutionism. Make it a catechesis, like Catholic or Evangelisch (German sense).

Unless Atheists do it at home or in Atheist private schools.

Mjoelnir
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution is science creation is religion. Simple.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Mjoelnir Sounds like "science" is your religion. And "religion" your false religions.

Mjoelnir
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Science is based on facts, religion is based on believes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Mjoelnir Beliefs are beliefs about facts.

Sciences and religions both involve beliefs about facts.

No one tells himself "I believe this is what I am believing" everyone who believes anything, by believing it, believes it is a fact.

Mjoelnir
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Once again trying to make it simple. Creationism is based on dogma. The outcome is predetermined. Than creationism tries to find observations that meet their dogma. If we talk about the extreme creationism of young earth to try to meat the bible story more narrowly, that has been thoroughly debunked.
I am against teaching young minds nonsense as science.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Creationism does not fit all observations. And about what creationism do you talk about. Sikh, the different stories of the American natives. Young earth? All of them are just stories people believe in. None of them are science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Mjoelnir "The outcome is predetermined. Than creationism tries to find observations that meet their dogma."

Pretty much how Evolution believers deal with Origin of Language. I suppose you are not very familiar with the question?

"that has been thoroughly debunked."

Since you know the debunking is THOROUGH, and since I suppose you are a German who yourself are THOROUGH, I suppose you are at least familiar with all of those debunkings and how thorough they are?

As a precisely Young Earth Creationist, I am interested in a thorough debunking from you, if you have one.

"Creationism does not fit all observations."

Tell me all about how it doesn't?

"All of them are just stories people believe in."

Which is actually how history works. I would say Sikh creationism and Amerindian creationism reflect less accurate versions of the same history as the Biblical narrative.

Thomas Diehl
@Hans-Georg Lundahl A yes, the accuracy of the biblical creation story. Where night and day are created before the sun is, rain comes from an ocean above the sky, and snakes have no legs because of making a woman eat a fruit. The biblical story is clearly a fairytale created by people who had no idea about reality to explain stuff they did not understand through guesswork. Not to blame them, they had barely made it out of being cavemen when they came up with this stuff. But we nowadays should really recognize these relics of the past as what they are - relics from an age when humans did not yet know enough about the world but tried to explain what they saw by dreaming up tales of gods and mythical creatures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Thomas Diehl "Where night and day are created before the sun is,"

You are aware that the Sun is not the only possible even natural light source? And that the creator of both Sun and light might have wanted to make a point about how He can give light without depending on the Sun as intermediate?

"rain comes from an ocean above the sky,"

I am not sure what precise passage you are talking of. If you mean God creates "waters above the firmament" I think the fact that the most common molecule in outer space is H2 and the second most common is H2O speaks pretty volumes for the words of the Bible - especially if you take into account that Hydrogen means (like Wasserstoff) "something you make water of" and that Moses could have simply called it water.

I do not recall a precise passage in which it is said that's where rain comes from.

"and snakes have no legs because of making a woman eat a fruit."

You are leaving out God as punisher of the fact.

And also that snake fossils with legs have been found.

"The biblical story is clearly a fairytale created by people who had no idea about reality"

Funny it predicted discoveries like snakes with legs and interstellar matter out of hydrogen gas and water molecules, then.

"to explain stuff they did not understand through guesswork."

Dito.

"Not to blame them, they had barely made it out of being cavemen when they came up with this stuff."

And why would a caveman be a bad scientist?

Aren't you presuming the idea, pretty common, but hardly evidenced, that cavemen on some timescale developed from apes who aren't scientists at all?

"But we nowadays should really recognize these relics of the past as what they are - relics from an age when humans did not yet know enough about the world"

What is "enough"? You obviously do not consider yourself as knowing all but you do consider you know enough and that they didn't - right? At what precise point is "not enough" turned into "enough"?

"but tried to explain what they saw by dreaming up tales of gods and mythical creatures."

I get a feeling your "enough" simply is when "it's possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (i e since Kepler-Newton and Lyell-Darwin) ... your "enough" = "enough to explain the world without God" (whether it applies to the universe, where Tychonian orbits are hard to explain without God and angels, or to the biosphere).

Mjoelnir
@Hans-Georg Lundahl No with evolution came observation first. The first ideas of evolution came with Darwin and his observations. A deeply religious scientist. He did not confuse science and storytelling.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Young earth is thoroughly debunked by another science, geology.

🗽 LIBERTY4MEN
People are naturally tribal, they will always find those who are similar to them in the end, either same race, religion, political beliefs. We are not all that different than the cavemen 50,000 years ago. We are biologically the same animal.

🗽 LIBERTY4MEN
@Mjoelnir do you understand those who have the $ affect the results of scentific studies. Follow the money, you'll find out who purchased what results.

Mjoelnir
@🗽 LIBERTY4MEN So what has that to do with trying to declare the belief in creation as Science?

🗽 LIBERTY4MEN
@Mjoelnir
Science is a religion of it's own.
The faithful blindly without question, believe what is says, because it's science, how is that different than a Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Christian etc believing in creationism as stated in their holy books... And taught by their holy men.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@🗽 LIBERTY4MEN Apart from 50 000 years ago and the restriction to "biologically" I agree, there is a natural tendency to tribalism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Mjoelnir "No with evolution came observation first."

Wait, what were my exact words again? Pretty much how Evolution believers deal with Origin of Language. That's what I said.

Now, if you didn't believe Evolution already, explain why you would THEN conclude that human language developed from animal vocal communications, based ONLY on observations, and obviously taking heed to account for all of them.

"The first ideas of evolution came with Darwin and his observations."

He was not a linguist.

He did not give any detailed theory on how human language was supposed to have evolved. He counted on others to do that and it still hasn't happened.

"A deeply religious scientist."

Deep religiosity and orthodox Christianity are not the same thing.

"He did not confuse science and storytelling."

He should not have divorced history and (non-fictional) story-telling.

And not have tried to invent a pre-historic story-telling based on science.

"Young earth is thoroughly debunked by another science, geology."

Lyell (who was - whether "deeply religious" or not - in the least orthodox party of the Church of England) had founded the pseudosciences of geologic deep time, building in part on a freethinker from Siccar point. Hutton. If you look up the article, it's in the category "British deists" and "Members of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh"

So, the "deeply religious" (on your view) Darwin, before doing his observations, had already said goodbye to the Bible and hello to Scottish philosophical Deism.

If you think geology actually disproves Young Earth, first prove that the Triassic of Anckerschlag (Austriacodactylus, a pterosaur) is older than the Miocene of Nussdorf (includes a kind of early whale and a kind of early seal). Because the layer in Anckerschlag lies under the layer in Nussdorf? Seefeld, where Anckerschlag is, is 499,2 km from Vienna. You pass by Linz and Salzburg, and at Rosenheim you turn left towaqrds Tyrol instead of right towards Munich. Seefeld is "1180 m ü. A." - confer "Der Nussberg (bis 1999 amtlich: Nußberg) ist ein 342 Meter hoher Berg im Bezirksteil Nussdorf im 19. Wiener Gemeindebezirk Döbling. 342 m ü. A."

Now, prove that a layer that's 1180 m. above the Adriatic see level, lies below a layer that is arguably even lower than 342 meters above the Adriatic, and which is close on 500 km away. Good luck. I think you will need it.

@Mjoelnir Maybe those that have the € don't quite love the idea more than you do?

And they then use their € in some roundabout (not too blatantly obvious) way to discourage institutions from looking into creationist arguments.

I am sometimes told to publish in peer reviewed science journals. Do you know the ownership structure for these?

Celina Kiss
@Hans-Georg Lundahl yikes

Celina Kiss
@Friedrich der Große lol, they are

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Celina Kiss I am not a thought reader, and I made more than one comment.

Putting a yikes at just me, without citing what provoked it is heavily unenlightening.

Removed
Her explanation and my answer belong under the other thread, even if they came here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Wolf842 "funny how education makes people intolerant of blatant bullshit"

Seems that this is the exact contrary of what Max Vos was claiming:

"the children are "confronted" with different oppinions and views early on ... [t]his means that children learn to tolerate other views to a degree."

So, are children (and teens) to be tolerant of "blatant bullshit" because it's someone else different opinion - or intolerant of other views because they are "blatant bullshit"?

The two goals seem incompatible, and yours seems that of a Commie dictatorship.

"There is a massive difference between "doesn't want their kid to be indoctrinated" and "claims that the state is indoctrinating their kid". The former is commendable, the latter is a massive claim that needs solid evidence - and without any, it's just despicable conspiracy theorist craziness."

So, not wanting your kid indoctrinated by the government is obviously commendable, but the government insists that before the parent applies this in practise, he provide massive proof?

I think quite a lot of these comments are massive proof that indoctrination into Evolution belief has been successful and is massively emotional too. This would normally mean, any parent who disapproves of evolutionism would have a valid reason to homeschool.

W a i t ... it is obviously also the government which says what conspiracy theories one is supposed to avoid ... meaning they can stamp that perfectly legitimate complaint as a conspiracy theory. If you were a school politician (who says you aren't?) would you like homeschooling parents to thereby show disapproval of what you provide, or would you prefer, if possible, to stamp this as a "conspiracy theory"?

Or does "indoctrinated" in your vocabulary automatically mean "indoctrinated by a cult that is not statesponsored, into things like UFO-logy, Creationism ..." with the state deciding what parents are at risk for "indoctrinating" their children?

"Also not happening here in Germany."

I think the complaint was about doing things many would consider as grooming - like encouraging "questioning of sexual / gender identities"

"Kind of hard to teach about complex chemical reactions without knowing about at least the basics of electron models, and how they apply to all the various elements. You need to drill the basic stuff into your head if you want to understand the more complex stuff.
None of the science stuff even actually qualifies as "indoctrination" - since there is no DOGMA."

As with the four cases of German grammar, there is no disciplinarian dogma involved in telling those learning German "learn 'der Wolf, des Wolfs, dem Wolfe, den Wolf' and then I'll teach you how each is used."

But the Wunderlichs weren't telling their offspring that Oxygen has one valency, Carbon two and Hydrogen four.

They weren't denying that acceleration is measured in meters per second squared. They weren't pretending a diagram of an object dropping five seconds to reaching the ground would involve the object at equal distances each second - more like a progression of the squares type.

None of the creation versus evolution debate is basics of science in that sense.

@Wolf842 "the creation story from the Silmarillion hasn't been disproven for example, so sure."

If by creation stories you mean things that like most verses of Genesis 1 precede man's presence as an observer, it's difficult to either prove or disprove.

Except by prophecy.

Now, if Eldar had received by Valar the correct account and then handed it on to men, that would have been prophecy. However, such an event of prophecy should be either documented or at least implied by documented facts - for instance Christian Creationists would differ on whether it was Adam or Moses who had the six day account from God. Adam when talking to God in Eden, or Moses when receiving it on Mount Sinai.

The problem is, prior to a certain JRRT, we do not hear of Eldar, not of Valinor, not of Númenor, not of Ainulindale or Valaquenta. This means, it is not, unlike Genesis, simply believed (if by any) as history. The event of prophecy would only be known by means very unusual in history.

C. S. Lewis commenting on Lay of Leithian was referring to learned men like Peabody and Pumpernickel and how their works are consultable in the Public Library of Narrowthrode (this being the modern name of Nargothrond). Do you have any perfectly mundane map where you can place Narrowthrode?

Tolkien in an only posthumously documented story suggested that Audoin and Alboin Errol went back in time, to Lombardic, perhaps Trojan, Noachic and finally Numenorian past lives of this father and son duo. I just saught ancestry dot com for Errol in England, there were 252 hits, none of them was explicitly Audoin or Alboin, and only one of them was Mr (leaving out the first name). I think localising this source would be a major wild goose chase.

In another story, he seems to have implied that the last hours of Númenor were known by a kind of seances conducted in the Notion Club. While Númenor could be a double to Edgar Cayce's Atlantis, the Silmarillion is shockingly silent about Edgar Cayce's Mu and Lemuria. I actually think hypnotic seances are a fairly bad means of getting to know the factual past (perhaps even in one's own life, apart from past life regressions or Edgar Cayce replicating Churchyard).

In other words, Silmarillion has less claim on us than the Biblical creation story, where the first link in a chain of early chapters of Genesis, as well as the last, Adam as well as Moses, were in kind of a good position to have known from God what He did before He made Adam and when He did so. And for Moses, we have about as good evidence as for Caesar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@RustyDust101 I had missed replying to yours too, for long.

" if there are obvious falacies, both logical and factual, in creationism"

Big if. By the way, a fallacy is about logic. As to factual, you have falsehoods.

"then pointing those fallacies out, isn't only a necessity, but relevant."

If this is what certain people were bona fide doing, why do they take turns at repeating same vague talking points and fleeing away from any actual debate I provide?

Plus, utting creationism at the centre of the homeschooling debate shows, "pointing these out" is totally not what it is all about, see next.

"In this case it is not intolerance of creationism per se, it is the inacceptance of falsehood as truth."

I do not accept falsehood as truth, that's why I reject Calvinism.

However, if I pretended that Calvinist parents should be forced to get their children raised in Catholic schools, and have their children taken into custody if refusing that, that would be intolerant and a very different thing from just pointing out the falsehoods and sometimes also fallacies of Calvinism.

"As such, yepp, that is an incredibly good thing to achieve."

Why are you instead achieving an intolerance which chears on the bad treatment against the Romeike and Wunderlich families?

I think both of them have an offspring that's grown. If you think Dirk and Petra Wunderlich were wrong to teach their children creationism, and you meet them, most of them are already adults, you can point out the "fallacies" all you want, if you dare take the debate.

But that's a very different thing from pleading the authorities of Germany did the right thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim "While christianities values were certainly novel 2000 years ago, christianity did not manage to improve life anywhere close as much as science has, even though science only had a fraction of the time christianity had to affect changes."

Prior to mid-seventies, even in the West World, science was occasionally very destructive of human life. Eugenics ended in Germany in 1945. In parts of US, Canada, and Northern Countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark), it took politicians to early to mid seventies to catch up with Patton.

But a former Führer of yours would obviously applaud your sentiment, and so would colleagues like Ferry-Combe or Lenin.

Bimbelimbim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Did you honestly just say something that stupid? If youd rather have regular a Pest-Pandemics then Covid, then be my guest. If youd rather have people dying from a simple injury due to lack of treatment, then be my guest. If youd rather cities be devasted by every single outbreak of fire, then be my guest. Get real! I could name an infinity of examples. Moreover since the use of science requires an educated society, it also promotes democracy and thus freedom. It seems you have no idea what an abscence of science would truely mean. The gains for mankind are unmatched by anything in history. Ofc there are people would abuse science for evil, but that was and is the case for religion too. Also, Id rather not be associated with Adolf Hitler like that. If you cant see the forest for trees, thats no reason to throw around grave insults in such an offhand fashion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim "If youd rather have regular a Pest-Pandemics then Covid, then be my guest."

St. Bridget told the King of Sweden to do a Crusade on the "pagans of Novgorod" that is the Tatars.

If it had happened, the Tatars would presumably not have brought the plague to Crimea in 1347, since they would have been occupied around Novgorod instead. If one king had obeyed God instead of worldly wisdom, the pandemic might not have happened.

That said, after the French Revolution we have had more years of Cholera in Europea, than we had of Plague in the Black Death (though not overall before the last plague in 1720 or sth).

"If youd rather have people dying from a simple injury due to lack of treatment, then be my guest."

If you prefer to get your facts from tracts over historic sources, be mine.

"If youd rather cities be devasted by every single outbreak of fire, then be my guest."

I think fires in apartment towers are not very nice either. Or, you may preach to Dresden how science was good enough to provide Mr. Churchill with the Phosphorus bomb ...

"I could name an infinity of examples."

Be my guest!

"Moreover since the use of science requires an educated society, it also promotes democracy and thus freedom."

It requires specialists and therefore elitism, plus on some views (presumably yours) also the slavery known as school compulsion.

"It seems you have no idea what an abscence of science would truely mean."

There never was such a thing. And by the way, I am a decent (if not authorised expert such) Medievalist.

Without Christianity, Columella would still have counselled slave owners to fraudulently sell old and sick slaves as younger and healthier than they are. And second or third daughters would have been put out to die or to get into brothels at birth. You have no real idea of an absence of Christianity (except the one you ineptly glorify).

"The gains for mankind are unmatched by anything in history."

Except of course by the losses for mankind. The cholera epidemics (like Covid) had a good boost by modern communications.

"Ofc there are people would abuse science for evil, but that was and is the case for religion too."

I don't think Catholicism has to bear the guilt for Calvinists and Methodists helping to sterilise Indians and Esquimeaux in Canada.

"Also, Id rather not be associated with Adolf Hitler like that."

So, who was Chancellor and who was President in 1938, as you love the paragraph 5 of that Reichsschulgesetz? Bismarck? I think he died 1890. And he was only Chancellor, since he had a Kaiser instead of a President.

"thats no reason to throw around grave insults in such an offhand fashion."

I think that you are so good at hiding your name that this is irrelevant to you. Also, precisely what people defending eugenics in Canada, US, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark would have said in 1970. There are Lapps, Gipsies and Esquimaux of the North thankful that the comparison was not withdrawn, and First Nations in Canada, and First Nations, Hispanics and Blacks in the US.

Bimbelimbim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I mean, you cant know what would have happened in an alternate history. Odds are the Pest would still have found its way. And there are historic sources for causes of death in medival times. I remember watching a documentary once, where they quoted a british church register, which recorded the causes of death to illustrate how poor the medicinal knowledge and abilities were at the time. Many of the injuries listed wouldnt have been lethal nor even lifethreathening with modern medicine. And if you dont think catholics are to blame for witchburing, the excessive violance of the inquisition and the holy wars, pray tell me who. Christianity has blood on its hand as well. And with fires, there is a difference in death tool and damage, between an entire town being burnt to a crisp and one single building. And many towns were completely destroyed by fires multiple times throughout history (london, 1666 for example).
If you want more examples, pray tell me, how would mankind be able to sustain its need for natural resources such as iron and coal and whatever else without a profound understanding of geology. You said medival ages are your expertise. Geology is mine. You realise why England had such a strong start in the industrialization process? Because a while before there was a nobleman with a spleen for geology exhausted his time and money on mapping the island, little knowing what a service this would become to his country.

And Ill say it again, drop it with the Nazi comments. Thats unacceptable. I am a proud european citizen. And I would never speak such an insult to anyone. Plus I am not hiding my name. Its just an online-alias that I use everywhere.

On a different note, since you asked where creationism does not fit the facts of reality, here are a few. How do you account for the existance of granite or any other plutonic rocks? It is simple math to calculate the cooling time from full melt to full solid for any given granite body. And those numbers are larger then the proclaimed age of the earth by creationists. How do you account for the fact that oceanic crusts show clean records dating back around to up to 100 million years, with no gaps and verified by several unrelated dating methods? How do you account for the fact, that dedrochronology litterally count backwards in years futher then the proclaimed earths age by the bible.

Believing in god is one thing. But believing in creationism is blantant ignorance of reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim "I mean, you cant know what would have happened in an alternate history."

What were you pretending to?

"Odds are the Pest would still have found its way."

No, those are not the odds. It was a very specific situation in Crimea leading to a very virulent strand of yersinia getting to a full shipload of people heading exactly the wrong way, to a port where no one was even remotvely used to dealing with bubonic plague.

"And there are historic sources for causes of death in medival times."

Indeed. For broad swathes and for famous individuals.

"I remember watching a documentary once, where they quoted a british church register, which recorded the causes of death to illustrate how poor the medicinal knowledge and abilities were at the time."

You recall from what years? Church registers weren't a thing before the Reformation in Protestant countries, even later in Catholic ones.

"Many of the injuries listed wouldnt have been lethal nor even lifethreathening with modern medicine."

Modern surgery, perhaps? Surgeons were the "poor cousin from the country-side" in Medieval medicine.

And Medicinal knowledge may have gone down the drain a bit during the Reformation. Are you sure the years aren't such that a war was going on? You know, catching pneumonia in 1915 was not necessarily mortal, but doing so in the trenches very well could be.

"And if you dont think catholics are to blame for witchburing,"

More witches were burned after the Reformation, more of them in Protestant countries and that is where it ended later.

"the excessive violance of the inquisition"

I don't happen to think the Inquisition was excessively violent.

"and the holy wars, pray tell me who."

If you mean against Muslims and North-East European Pagans and Albigensians, perhaps Albigensians, North-East European Pagans and Muslims have a certain blame?

"Christianity has blood on its hand as well."

I don't think that is true. Bad Christians, but not Christianity and not Catholic Christendom - not if you mean innocent blood anyway.

"And with fires, there is a difference in death tool and damage, between an entire town being burnt to a crisp and one single building."

Which situation made fleeing sideways easier? Like to live on 20th floor when the fire is on 10th and spreading upward?

"And many towns were completely destroyed by fires multiple times throughout history (london, 1666 for example)."

London in 1666 is outside Catholic Christendom and after the Middle Ages. Shall we check actually Medieval ones?

Another great fire broke out in London in 675, destroying the Saxon cathedral that was built of wood. The cathedral was rebuilt in stone in the years 675–685.[2] Fires were also reported for 798 and 982. In 989, a fire occurred "that, beginning in Aldgate, burned down houses and churches all the way to Ludgate".

I think this means one near total burning down in Saxon times, 989.

A major fire occurred in London in 1087, at the beginning of the reign of William Rufus. It consumed much of the Norman city. St Paul's Cathedral was the most significant building to be destroyed in this blaze, which also damaged the Palatine tower built by William the Conqueror on the banks of the River Fleet so badly that the remains had to be pulled down. Part of the stone from the tower was then used in the reconstruction of the cathedral.

Near total again. 1087

The first dates to Pentecost 1133 (14 May), and according to different traditions started either on London Bridge or in the home of the Sheriff of London, Gilbert Becket (Beket), a mercer and father of Thomas Becket.[3] This blaze was so severe that it destroyed most of the city between St Paul's and St Clement Danes in Westminster. The chronicler Matthew Paris records that the fire destroyed St Paul's Cathedral once again, but this was not the case. One indication of the severity of the fire can be seen in assessments of Gilbert Becket's wealth, based largely on his London property, which declined sharply in its aftermath.

1133.

The second of the two great medieval fires of London, also known as "the Great Fire of Suthwark" [sic], began on 10 July 1212 in Southwark, the borough directly to the south of London Bridge. The flames destroyed Our Lady of the Canons (Southwark Cathedral, also known as St Mary Overie) and strong southerly winds pushed them towards the bridge, which also caught fire. London Bridge had only just been rebuilt in stone, and the structure itself survived the blaze. However, King John had authorised the construction of houses on the bridge, the rents from which were supposed to pay for its maintenance, and it appears that these were lost to the flames.

1212 - a source from 1274 gives about this extent, but later sources seem to have given greater ones (around 1600, not long before 1666).

But let me give you some context. In the French wiki, the category "Incendie au XVIIe siècle" gives London 1666 and Trondheim 1681.
"Incendie au XVIe siècle" gives Moscow 1547.
XIVe XVe siècles - don't exist

Perhaps London was very ill fated with fires, how about you try some other city than London? I don't think Paris will float your boat, since when I go from category Fires in London (where the majority are more modern than 1666), to Fires by city, and from there to Fires in Paris, I find only modern examples.

2005 Paris fires
2019 Paris explosion
Bazar de la Charité
February 2019 Paris fire
Hôtel Ritz Paris
Notre-Dame fire
Paris Métro train fire

And on the French, there is 26, as I find when I continue to Incendie en France, I find as oldest example Incendie de Rennes de 1720.

"If you want more examples, pray tell me,"

Oh, do.

"how would mankind be able to sustain its need for natural resources such as iron and coal and whatever else without a profound understanding of geology."

The exact natural resources we depend most on are the renewable ones, called soil and water. Available without an understanding of geology.

"You said medival ages are your expertise."

Partly. Medieval Latin, plus some less Classical Latin and Classical Greek, plus more side reading on Middle Ages or somewhat less Antiquity.

"Geology is mine. You realise why England had such a strong start in the industrialization process?"

Which as you may note I am no enthusiast of - but go on ...

"Because a while before there was a nobleman with a spleen for geology exhausted his time and money on mapping the island, little knowing what a service this would become to his country."

Was his name Lyell, or something?

"And Ill say it again, drop it with the Nazi comments. Thats unacceptable. I am a proud european citizen. And I would never speak such an insult to anyone. Plus I am not hiding my name. Its just an online-alias that I use everywhere."

I use my own name everywhere.

You are obviously free to desist from defending the policy of Reichsschulgesetz of 1938, and I'll say you didn't remain too close to them. Especially if you ditch the science worship too. The Nazi martyr in Graz was killed by Austrofascists (a Catholic régime), and he was a medical doctor. Not a devout Catholic.

"On a different note, since you asked where creationism does not fit the facts of reality, here are a few. How do you account for the existance of granite or any other plutonic rocks? It is simple math to calculate the cooling time from full melt to full solid for any given granite body. And those numbers are larger then the proclaimed age of the earth by creationists."

I think there are Creationist colleagues of yours who have done some work on polonium halos and concluded they didn't form in the Flood, but rather in Creation Week.

"How do you account for the fact that oceanic crusts show clean records dating back around to up to 100 million years, with no gaps and verified by several unrelated dating methods?"

You want me to take your word without elaborating on the details of any method.

"How do you account for the fact, that dedrochronology litterally count backwards in years futher then the proclaimed earths age by the bible."

That's outside geology proper ... when it comes to dating by old tree rings or old papyri, both lignine based, the further back you go, the more fragmentary and you get, the smaller the samples are, the less you can really compare overlaps.

"Believing in god is one thing. But believing in creationism is blantant ignorance of reality."

Believing in sciences is one thing, but equating Science to Reality is blatantly ignorant of reality.

Wolf842
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Seems that this is the exact contrary of what Max Vos was claiming:"
I wasn't responding to him, I was responding to you. No idea why you bring in something from the OP now.

"So, are children (and teens) to be tolerant of "blatant bullshit" because it's someone else different opinion"
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. Religious claims aren't opinions, they're claims (beliefs, whatever) about facts of reality. And so far, all have turned out to be bullshit

"The two goals seem incompatible, and yours seems that of a Commie dictatorship."
Right, just like your goal is that of a reptilian overload dictatorship.

When you've learned how to sort out your massive biases and can have an actually honest conversation, I'll be happy to continue this. Until then, it's obviously just a waste of time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Wolf842 "I was responding to you."

I actually answered two of yours of which only one to me.

But I simply find it interesting that you are a disproof of his idealism about tolerance.

"Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts."

Opinions are usually about facts.

Neither a creation in six days, nor a development of a new cell type once every 3 million years is observable right now.

Neither a slow buildup of ammonites just a few millimeters per year, nor a world wide flood burying among other things ammonites in GC are observable right now.

What we have about these are opinions. Could be based on religious claims like "the Bible is true" or "there is no God" - in certain cases.

"just like your goal is that of a reptilian overload dictatorship."

When did homeschooling become dictatorship?

"When you've learned how to sort out your massive biases"

Meaning, when I've gone over from my confession to yours. Not likely to happen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim I looked up the death tolls.

The fire of London in 1666 had a smaller death toll than the apartment tower.

The one in 1212 had a greater one, but mostly in one particular area - the houses built, untypically for the Middle Ages, on London Bridge, authorised, against better sense, by the radical John Lackland.

Wolf842
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "When did homeschooling become dictatorship?"
Around the same time social democracies became Commie dictatorships.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Wolf842 If you mean that social democracies have mixed economy, so does Red China, by now ....

Bimbelimbim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ofc a city fire would have a low death toll. They did have an excellent warning system with wardens on the church towers, even if they lacked the means to fight it, and if noticed early, you can flee such a fire afoot. But look at the damage done. Well over 10000 houses destroyed. No single fire in modern urban areas ever got close to that. On the contrary the majorty of all fires usually damage one or maybe a few houses, but thats it.

Wolf842
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yep, and carpenters work with wood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim So, destroying houses is worse than burning people in?

The great fire of Gateshead and Newcastle was a tragic and spectacular series of events starting on Friday 6 October 1854, in which a substantial amount of property in two North East England towns was destroyed in a series of fires and an explosion which killed 53 and injured hundreds. There is only one building still extant on the Newcastle Quayside which predated the fire.

That's worse than 1666, and if 1212 was even worse than that, it's because wooden houses had been built on a bridge.

But to really modern things ...

The fire caused 72 deaths, including one who died in the hospital a day later and another who died in January 2018.[102][103][104] The latter occurred after an official death toll was announced by police in November 2017.[105] The incident ranks as the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster and the worst UK residential fire since the Second World War.[106]

Grenfell Tower (2017) - worse than 1666 in deaths.

If no lives were lost in the Fire in North Woolwich, this year, it is because 125 firefighters were employed and it was on the top floor, no one was trapped above the fire.

Bimbelimbim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Damages and human injuries and casualties shouldnt ever be compared like that. Fact of the matter is that fires still pose way less of a threath nowadays then in the past, so quit the nitpicking. The damages of historic fires are on entirely different scales, because there was no effective way to combat fire.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim "pose way less of a threath nowadays then in the past,"

Apart from London, Trondheim and Moscow, that seems to be the recent past, like 1700's up.

And obviously, the apartment buildings in Ancient Rome, before Christianity took over the show.

You said you were a geologist, not that you were a historian. Mind if I don't just take your word for it?

"there was no effective way to combat fire."

Except obviously keeping some space between houses, so it didn't spread so easily. And use materials that didn't burn.

This seems to have been more the case in London in 1212 than in 1666, except for those wooden huts that in defiance of normal regulations had been built on London Bridge. This seems to have been more the case in Paris too.

I looked at the German wiki for Stadtbrandt.

For the Germanies, it was three in the Middle Ages, more like five or eight for Early Modern times (frühe Neutzeit), several more in the 18th and 19th C.

And you have forgotten how Chicago was so clustered that the great fire of Chicago took 300 deaths too.

Vesselfit2use
The public schools are pushing perversion such as pedophilia and homosexuality as early as 5 years old. Your children are your responsibility and you will have to give an account for what you allowed them to be taught.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Vesselfit2use I am not sure how they are pushing pedophilia, or exactly what you mean by it, but in fact the part on tolerating homosexuality and basically telling children they might discover they are that certainly is there.

Bimbelimbim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ever since fire fighting was established in societies around the world, fire that consume entire cities or something like that have become extremely rare, before that you could prevent fire from spreading in advance and you could flee from it, but you had no means to combat it once it started. And since you quoted german wikipedia. It lists ~50 events in the 19 century (warfare excluded), whereas it only lists 6 in the last century (warefare excluded). And for arguments sake, even if you say science is to blame for the war fires and count them in, well the overall number is still lower. Science is the single greatest power mankind acquired to date. And as such the effects of it in good or bad are bigger then with other powers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim Sure firefighting came along and bettered the conditions from what they were in late 19th C. - but these were worse than what they were in the Middle Ages. AND depended on science and progress to get to that.

Bimbelimbim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hm, not sure why that would be. Maybe because cities were not as big in the middle ages. After all urbanisation as a trend started well before the industrial revolution. And the bigger a town, the bigger the fire, if it burns to the ground and the risk of fire igniting also increase, as there are more and more people, who might be negligent and make a mistake. Also if towns grow in population and not as much in size, houses will be built closely together, which also promotes big fires to spread easily. As well as speaking about the 19th century in particular the industrialisation also created many new risks for fires with all the industrial use fire started to see as an energy source. The thruth should lie somewhere along these lines.

Angela Burress
No it’s to make sure that at least people have a basic education because o know that two generations from this generation are going to be super stupid and inadequate to say the least because of all of this homeschooling🤔🤔🤪🤪💁🏽‍♀️💁🏽‍♀️🤷🏽‍♀️🤷🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Angela Burress There is no indication homeschooling makes people stupid.

Except of course to fanatic evolutionists who take any creationist for stupid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bimbelimbim "After all urbanisation as a trend started well before the industrial revolution."

There was a "first industrial revolution" (gunpowder, acids, salpeter outside gunpowder) about when it started.

I obviously think the urbanisation trend was less than ideal too.

"Also if towns grow in population and not as much in size, houses will be built closely together, which also promotes big fires to spread easily."

Exactly what John Lackland promoted by allowing huts to huddle on London Bridge.

No comments: