Tell the good news about home schools

Tell the good news about home schools

There are 298 comments on the Des Moines Register story from Jan 24, 2010, titled Tell the good news about home schools. In it, Des Moines Register reports that:

Does the Register not realize the $8 million the state spends for home schooling is a bargain to taxpayers? School districts receive 30 percent of the regular funding per child for home-schooled children, or 40 percent if dual-enrolled in order to cover costs associated with the home-schooled student participating in selected public school ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Des Moines Register.

MaltaMon

Blackwood, NJ

#21 Apr 16, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
How can an idiot like you teach home schooling?
"Teach home schooling"? WTF does that mean? A Did you learn English from the Homo Hag of Halifags? Was he also your Sex Ed teacher? Taught you feminine charm as well?
Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#22 Apr 17, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
"Intelligent" design is about as scientific as astrology. This is, of course, why many deluded parents choose to send their kids to fundamentalist religious schools or home school them. They don't want them to learn about the Theory of Evolution, which contradicts the creationist crap in the unholy babble. This is a theory supported by thousands of pieces of scientific evidence and accepted by 99.9% of the biologists in the world. As Tom Friedman once wrote, the Chinese and the Indians want "intelligent" design taught in American schools, they want our jobs.
Keep in mind many religious people would also believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in schools. Better for students to get a better picture of both sides, in order to understand the flaws of evolution, and how in fact intelligent design is true(I believe in intelligent design).

Besides, many theories of evolution taught in schools are dropped and out dated ideas anyway.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#23 Apr 17, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep in mind many religious people would also believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in schools. Better for students to get a better picture of both sides, in order to understand the flaws of evolution, and how in fact intelligent design is true(I believe in intelligent design).
Besides, many theories of evolution taught in schools are dropped and out dated ideas anyway.
Let's see, by the logic of Largelanguage's position, we should also teach the stork theory of reproduction along with meiosis, astrology along with astronomy, geocentric Solar System along with heliocentric Solar System, etc.

Now Largelanguage is correct that many of the textbooks of biology that are used in high school biology classes are out of date, as evolutionary biology is a fast changing subject based on new information. However, the basic ideas of common descent and the main driving force of mutations plus natural selection haven't changed in a 150 years as overreaching ideas. What has changed are details, such as the discovery of DNA.

"Intelligent" Design consists of nothing more then the claim that "evolution can't explain X". This is, of course, nothing but a god of the gaps argument. Unfortunately, the history of science proves that the gaps are always filled in as science advances.

A perfect example of a gap being filled in in evolutionary biology was that proclaimed by IDiot Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh, Un. In his 1995 book, "Darwin's Black Box", Behe pointed to the absence of intermediate fossils between a land dwelling hoofed wolf like animal and modern whales and dolphins. Evolutionary biologists had long proposed that whales and dolphins evolved from the aforementioned animal. Well guess what, subsequent to Behe's claim, the fossils of at least a dozen such intermediates have now been found (c.f. Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Pakicetus etc.) and poor Behe was forced to admit at the Dover trial that these findings supported common descent, which he had been skeptical of in his 1995 book.

Another example is the claim of evolutionary biologists that Chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor. Rather then pontificating on this topic, I'll link to a presentation of a real biologist, Ken Miller, no atheist he, a professor of the subject at Brown, Un.

Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#24 Apr 17, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see, by the logic of Largelanguage's position, we should also teach the stork theory of reproduction along with meiosis, astrology along with astronomy, geocentric Solar System along with heliocentric Solar System, etc.
Now Largelanguage is correct that many of the textbooks of biology that are used in high school biology classes are out of date, as evolutionary biology is a fast changing subject based on new information. However, the basic ideas of common descent and the main driving force of mutations plus natural selection haven't changed in a 150 years as overreaching ideas. What has changed are details, such as the discovery of DNA.
"Intelligent" Design consists of nothing more then the claim that "evolution can't explain X". This is, of course, nothing but a god of the gaps argument. Unfortunately, the history of science proves that the gaps are always filled in as science advances.
A perfect example of a gap being filled in in evolutionary biology was that proclaimed by IDiot Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh, Un. In his 1995 book, "Darwin's Black Box", Behe pointed to the absence of intermediate fossils between a land dwelling hoofed wolf like animal and modern whales and dolphins. Evolutionary biologists had long proposed that whales and dolphins evolved from the aforementioned animal. Well guess what, subsequent to Behe's claim, the fossils of at least a dozen such intermediates have now been found (c.f. Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Pakicetus etc.) and poor Behe was forced to admit at the Dover trial that these findings supported common descent, which he had been skeptical of in his 1995 book.
Another example is the claim of evolutionary biologists that Chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor. Rather then pontificating on this topic, I'll link to a presentation of a real biologist, Ken Miller, no atheist he, a professor of the subject at Brown, Un.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zi8FfMBYCkkXX
I have proof that this world was designed by a God, scientific proof.

A motor like machine has been found within a bacterial organism. How could it evolve one part of it to form the base, and form to evolve other parts and build into that motor? It couldn't just evolve parts and functions bit by bit. It would have to form a proper complete motor, but creatures apparently only form and evolve bits by bits.

Also, particular properties of this earth would cause instant death if they weren't set right, such as the distance of the sun.

And no fossils have ever been actually found to be that ancient. A fossil of a supposed ancient bird has been found out to be nothing more than a bat, some reptile, or a modern bird.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#25 Apr 17, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
I have proof that this world was designed by a God, scientific proof.
A motor like machine has been found within a bacterial organism. How could it evolve one part of it to form the base, and form to evolve other parts and build into that motor? It couldn't just evolve parts and functions bit by bit. It would have to form a proper complete motor, but creatures apparently only form and evolve bits by bits.
Also, particular properties of this earth would cause instant death if they weren't set right, such as the distance of the sun.
And no fossils have ever been actually found to be that ancient. A fossil of a supposed ancient bird has been found out to be nothing more than a bat, some reptile, or a modern bird.
1. Largelanguage is referring to the bacterial flagellum which Behe claims is irreducibly complex. As Miller explained during his testimony in the Dover Trial, the flagellum evolved from the type 3 secretory system.

2. I assume that Largelanguage is referring to Archeopteryx, which has both bird and reptile features. It is most certainly not a bat which is a mammal. Apparently, Largelanguage thinks that bats are birds, which is implied in the unholy babble.

3. Dinosaur fossils at least 130 million years old have been found (Apatosaurus). Apparently, Largelanguage is a young earth creationist.

I must say Largelanguage that I have seldom heard anyone speak so knowledgeably from such a vast fund of ignorance. I have no training or expertise in biology, being an elementary particle physicist but even I have a rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary biology.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#26 Apr 18, 2013
1. The Flagella motor is actually very complex, it couldn't just evolve into it.

2. It is in any case found out to be a bird, or a bat.

3. Can you prove the bones lasted that long? A test on rocks found them out to be only as long as the young earth.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#27 Apr 18, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
1. The Flagella motor is actually very complex, it couldn't just evolve into it.
2. It is in any case found out to be a bird, or a bat.
3. Can you prove the bones lasted that long? A test on rocks found them out to be only as long as the young earth.
1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the transcript of Ken Millers Dover testimony where the issue of the bacterial flagellum was dissected at length.

2. It's an intermediate between a reptile and a bird. In no way, shape, form, or regard is it a bat.

3. Largelanguage is really ignorant. The material that made up the bones of ancient animals was replaced by minerals long ago. That's why they are called fossils. We know how old the fossils are because they lie between layers that have been dated by radioactive decay methods. Radioactive decay is a well understood theory based on quantum mechanics.

By the way, if the universe is only 6000 years old, will Largelanguage enlighten us as to how light which has a finite speed of 299,000 km/sec reached us from stars billions of light-years away. Or even from other stars in the Milky Way Galaxy that are 50 thousand light years away.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#28 Apr 18, 2013
1. Explain how it could evolve then. A normal creature would evolve a piece with some purpose. Just one piece the flagella motor would have no purpose, so it couldn't just a evolve an extra piece, of the flagella motor, and evolve into the motor, because those pieces evolved without reason. Otherwise, explain how it evolved.

2. It might not be a bat, who knows? But it has been found out to be only a reptile, or a bird(or maybe a bat).

3. Explain how radioactive decay could determine it to be for millions and billions of years old.

4. Explain how you know the stars travelled that distance. And how are we supposed to know? Were scientists around to have observed light travel to earth for 299,000 km/sec?
SLC

Arlington, VA

#29 Apr 18, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
1. Explain how it could evolve then. A normal creature would evolve a piece with some purpose. Just one piece the flagella motor would have no purpose, so it couldn't just a evolve an extra piece, of the flagella motor, and evolve into the motor, because those pieces evolved without reason. Otherwise, explain how it evolved.
2. It might not be a bat, who knows? But it has been found out to be only a reptile, or a bird(or maybe a bat).
3. Explain how radioactive decay could determine it to be for millions and billions of years old.
4. Explain how you know the stars travelled that distance. And how are we supposed to know? Were scientists around to have observed light travel to earth for 299,000 km/sec?
1. Go read Ken Miller's testimony at Dover. Until then, STFU.

2. Bats are mammals. Archeopteryx was an intermediate between reptiles and birds. It was not a bat. Stop repeating this ridiculous comment.

3. Boy, you really are ignorant. Radioactive elements decay at a fixed rate. By determining the ratio of the original sample and it's decay products, we can determine how long it's been around. Example, C(14) eventually decays to C(12) which is stable. It has a half life of 5500 years, which means that a given C(14) nucleus has exactly a probability of 1/2 of lasting for 5500 years. It has a probability of lasting 11,000 years of 1/4. Or, put another way, a large sample of pure C(14) will be half decayed into C(12) after 5500 years, 3/4 decayed into C(12) after 11,000 years, etc.

4. We know how far away a star is because we know its absolute magnitude from its spectrum, and its apparent magnitude from direct observation. The difference allows us to estimate how far away it is. In the case of very far away galaxies, we can observe supernovas, which are briefly more luminous then entire galaxies and whose parameters are well known to estimate the distance. The speed of light was measured over 100 years ago by Michelson, for which he received a Nobel Prize in physics, to 5 significant figures. Thus, for instance, light from the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 5 million light years distant took 5 million years to get here. We see that object not as it actually appears today but as it appeared 5 million years ago.

I would suggest that Largelanguage learn something about physics before he engages in arguments with someone who has a PhD in the subject.
Bob

Ch√Ęteauguay, Canada

#30 Apr 18, 2013
LargeLanguage IS a PhD.

Pedophile-homosexual-Dolt

Hahahahaha!
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#31 Apr 18, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Go read Ken Miller's testimony at Dover. Until then, STFU.
2. Bats are mammals. Archeopteryx was an intermediate between reptiles and birds. It was not a bat. Stop repeating this ridiculous comment.
3. Boy, you really are ignorant. Radioactive elements decay at a fixed rate. By determining the ratio of the original sample and it's decay products, we can determine how long it's been around. Example, C(14) eventually decays to C(12) which is stable. It has a half life of 5500 years, which means that a given C(14) nucleus has exactly a probability of 1/2 of lasting for 5500 years. It has a probability of lasting 11,000 years of 1/4. Or, put another way, a large sample of pure C(14) will be half decayed into C(12) after 5500 years, 3/4 decayed into C(12) after 11,000 years, etc.
4. We know how far away a star is because we know its absolute magnitude from its spectrum, and its apparent magnitude from direct observation. The difference allows us to estimate how far away it is. In the case of very far away galaxies, we can observe supernovas, which are briefly more luminous then entire galaxies and whose parameters are well known to estimate the distance. The speed of light was measured over 100 years ago by Michelson, for which he received a Nobel Prize in physics, to 5 significant figures. Thus, for instance, light from the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 5 million light years distant took 5 million years to get here. We see that object not as it actually appears today but as it appeared 5 million years ago.
I would suggest that Largelanguage learn something about physics before he engages in arguments with someone who has a PhD in the subject.
Isn't that precisely what you did with me regarding international affairs?
Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#32 Apr 19, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Go read Ken Miller's testimony at Dover. Until then, STFU.
2. Bats are mammals. Archeopteryx was an intermediate between reptiles and birds. It was not a bat. Stop repeating this ridiculous comment.
3. Boy, you really are ignorant. Radioactive elements decay at a fixed rate. By determining the ratio of the original sample and it's decay products, we can determine how long it's been around. Example, C(14) eventually decays to C(12) which is stable. It has a half life of 5500 years, which means that a given C(14) nucleus has exactly a probability of 1/2 of lasting for 5500 years. It has a probability of lasting 11,000 years of 1/4. Or, put another way, a large sample of pure C(14) will be half decayed into C(12) after 5500 years, 3/4 decayed into C(12) after 11,000 years, etc.
4. We know how far away a star is because we know its absolute magnitude from its spectrum, and its apparent magnitude from direct observation. The difference allows us to estimate how far away it is. In the case of very far away galaxies, we can observe supernovas, which are briefly more luminous then entire galaxies and whose parameters are well known to estimate the distance. The speed of light was measured over 100 years ago by Michelson, for which he received a Nobel Prize in physics, to 5 significant figures. Thus, for instance, light from the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 5 million light years distant took 5 million years to get here. We see that object not as it actually appears today but as it appeared 5 million years ago.
I would suggest that Largelanguage learn something about physics before he engages in arguments with someone who has a PhD in the subject.
1. I've already read about it, you can explain it for yourself. And telling me to STFU is uncalled for. I have not wronged you at all.

2. I know a bat is a mammal(well, as far I a know it is anyway), but that doesn't mean this thing isn't a mammal fossil. Who cares? Stop playing with words.

3. Explain how it works this way. And there are many other physical properties which could determine this.

4. But how are you supposed to pick up the difference? How are you supposed to pick up a difference that happened billions of years ago, 5 billion?
SLC

Arlington, VA

#33 Apr 19, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Isn't that precisely what you did with me regarding international affairs?
Unlike Largelanguage, who is obviously totally ignorant of physics, I have taken the trouble to learn something about international affairs.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#34 Apr 19, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I've already read about it, you can explain it for yourself. And telling me to STFU is uncalled for. I have not wronged you at all.
2. I know a bat is a mammal(well, as far I a know it is anyway), but that doesn't mean this thing isn't a mammal fossil. Who cares? Stop playing with words.
3. Explain how it works this way. And there are many other physical properties which could determine this.
4. But how are you supposed to pick up the difference? How are you supposed to pick up a difference that happened billions of years ago, 5 billion?
4. Good question. Light from a luminous object falls off as the square of the distance from it. Thus, to someone located 186 million miles from the Sun, it would appear 1/4 as bright as it does from the standpoint of the Earth at 93 million miles from the Sun.

Absolute magnitude is defined as the apparent brightness of a star located 32 light years away (10 parsecs). Thus, the absolute magnitude of the Sun is about +5 which would be its apparent brightness if it were 32 light years away, instead of 93 million miles. Note that increasing positive numbers indicate decreasing brightness. Let's take an example of a star with an apparent magnitude of 0 but whose spectrum indicates that it would appear to have a magnitude of +1 if it were 32 light years away. Since magnitude is measured in powers of 10 (e.g. a star of magnitude 0 is 10 times as bright as a star of magnitude 1 at the same distance), we know that it is 10.12 light years away [=32/sqrt(10)]. Similarly, if the star had an apparent magnitude of 1 but whose spectrum indicated that it would have a magnitude of 0 if it were 32 light years away, we know that it is 101.2 light years away [=32*sqrt(10)].
MaltaMon

New Castle, DE

#35 Apr 19, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike Largelanguage, who is obviously totally ignorant of physics, I have taken the trouble to learn something about international affairs.
But not much. Not much at all. It's just the old double standard at work.
Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#36 Apr 19, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Good question. Light from a luminous object falls off as the square of the distance from it. Thus, to someone located 186 million miles from the Sun, it would appear 1/4 as bright as it does from the standpoint of the Earth at 93 million miles from the Sun.
Absolute magnitude is defined as the apparent brightness of a star located 32 light years away (10 parsecs). Thus, the absolute magnitude of the Sun is about +5 which would be its apparent brightness if it were 32 light years away, instead of 93 million miles. Note that increasing positive numbers indicate decreasing brightness. Let's take an example of a star with an apparent magnitude of 0 but whose spectrum indicates that it would appear to have a magnitude of +1 if it were 32 light years away. Since magnitude is measured in powers of 10 (e.g. a star of magnitude 0 is 10 times as bright as a star of magnitude 1 at the same distance), we know that it is 10.12 light years away [=32/sqrt(10)]. Similarly, if the star had an apparent magnitude of 1 but whose spectrum indicated that it would have a magnitude of 0 if it were 32 light years away, we know that it is 101.2 light years away [=32*sqrt(10)].
But the frequency of light changes its distance it has travelled too. It could have a different changing frequency as well, which could be counted.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#37 Apr 19, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But the frequency of light changes its distance it has travelled too. It could have a different changing frequency as well, which could be counted.
This applies to objects very far away which are receding at a rate proportional to distance. This is known as the Doppler effect. However, this is easily observable because the various spectral lines are all shifted by the same amount. Thus, the elements that produce the spectral lines can be identified and the amount of shift gives their receding speed. Thus, the Doppler effect can be accounted for in determining the absolute magnitude of the stars and thence there distance.
SLC

Arlington, VA

#38 Apr 19, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> But not much. Not much at all. It's just the old double standard at work.
That's your opinion. Clearly, my knowledge of international affairs is not equal to that of someone who has a degree in the subject and has experience in the field. On the other hand, it's a lot greater then Largelanguage's knowledge of physics and evolutionary biology, which is practically non-existent.
Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#39 Apr 19, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
This applies to objects very far away which are receding at a rate proportional to distance. This is known as the Doppler effect. However, this is easily observable because the various spectral lines are all shifted by the same amount. Thus, the elements that produce the spectral lines can be identified and the amount of shift gives their receding speed. Thus, the Doppler effect can be accounted for in determining the absolute magnitude of the stars and thence there distance.
How do you know they can be shifted at the same amount?
MaltaMon

Mullica Hill, NJ

#40 Apr 19, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your opinion. Clearly, my knowledge of international affairs is not equal to that of someone who has a degree in the subject and has experience in the field. On the other hand, it's a lot greater then Largelanguage's knowledge of physics and evolutionary biology, which is practically non-existent.
greater THAN

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Etc. Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 2 min usa 149,558
News Tamaqua school board 9 hr big black and veiny 13
News Sequim Schools' survey says community would sup... Fri Kerozene 1
News Accused Broward County student linked to more h... (Mar '08) Fri lawyer trash 93
News Board spikes denials, lets 2 families change di... Fri Change schools 1
News Jerry Sandusky and the mind of a pedophile. (Sep '12) Fri Sadam loyalist 13
News Retirement leads to shift in Cartersville princ... Fri Confused 5
More from around the web