 |
 NEW Learning Resources Power Solids Science Manipulat $12.99 Time Remaining: 22d 17h 15m Buy It Now for only: $12.99 |
 LRN LER7630 2 Learning Resources Power Solids Science Manipulatives $38.99 Time Remaining: 23d 15h 5m Buy It Now for only: $38.99 |
 MEDIA SCIENCE PREMIUM SOLID INK MS350Y2K1 3 PACK $49.99 Time Remaining: 3d 14h 26m Buy It Now for only: $49.99 |
Sciences Solid
Easy Science Projects For Kids
It's important for kids to get involved in science from an early age, as exposure to scientific ideas and the world of exploration as soon as possible is the best way to foster a love for learning in your children that will last a lifetime. At the same time, scientific knowledge is cumulative, so kids have to start with a solid foundation if they are to develop the necessary scientific skills to succeed in school, and perhaps in a future career. Of course, when doing science projects with kids the most important thing to remember is to have fun! Youth science fair projects aren't meant to transform your child into a scientist - they are meant to get the creative juices flowing within your child and help him or her continue to explore the natural world and make use of the imagination.
So where do you find ideas for science projects, if you want to get your child started on something at home? Luckily, these days you don't have to look far to find science projects for your children - simply do an online search and you should be able to find tons of websites containing information and ideas pertaining to science fair projects and science for children in general. These websites list science projects and tell you exactly how to do them and what to do, so the process of helping your child discover science or prepare science fair projects for school is made easy.
In the past, it was easy for parents to become frustrated when helping kids with homework and coming up with ideas for science fair projects - now it's easy to help them out and you don't have to be a science whiz yourself! And if your child demonstrates a natural interest in science, it's even more important that you encourage it from an early age. Whether or not you have to do a project for school, or complete a homework assignment, kids getting involved in science at home is a great idea!
In fact, doing their own science experiments at home is a great way to supplement the regular educational exposure your kids get during the day in the classroom. And if you home school your children coming up with fun and educational science experiments that are easy to recreate at home is the perfect way to help your kids exercise their minds and learn about science while having a lot of fun at the same time.
When you set up science projects for your kids to do at home, it makes learning fun - this will carry over to the child's classroom experience and may even improve their grades overall. Of course, that is not the main goal of doing science experiments at home. Again, do these projects with your children as a fun activity and the learning will spring from that organically. Specifically, when searching for science projects for your kids to do at home it's a good idea to find something your children, and maybe even their friends, will enjoy. Figure out what interests your child and go from there. Involving them in the process will help them naturally discover where their interests are and what type of experiments they'll gain the most from.
You can find the instructions for these experiments for free, although you will have to purchase some basic supplies in most cases. At the same time, materials used in most of these projects are relatively inexpensive and not difficult to find.
About the Author
For some easy science project ideas that only require everyday household items, check out the
Easy Science Projects Web Site
.
Evolutionists, what OBSERVED sciences do people have to reject to reject macro-evolution?
I do not know of anyone, evolutionists or creationists, that rejects physics.
I have never been able to walk through a wall, or swim in solid dirt, or walk on just air.
I do not know of anyone, evolutionists or creationists, that rejects biology.
I do not think that I can cut off my arm and grow a new one, or remove my heart, and still live.
What observed sciences do I, or anyone else, have to reject.to reject macro-evolution?
1. You would have to reject the OBSERVED science of DNA sequencing. Because it's DNA sequencing that allows us to see the *markers* shared between species that points to shared ancestry.
For example, you would have to reject the DNA markers that shows that human chromosome #2 shows signs of fusion (by the DNA sequences of telomeres and centromeres), and that the two fused chromosomes show markers of being homologous to separate chromosomes in the other apes.
2. You would have to reject the OBSERVED science of paleontology ... all of it. For example, you would have to reject any OBSERVED commonalities between, or relative ages of, the fossils of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, and modern whales and dolphins ... for example rejecting (or simply ignoring) the increasingly vestigial rear legs, to the point that in Basilosaurus and Dorudon the bones are present, but almost entirely useless for locomotion of such a large animal. You simply need to deny that they have anything to do with each other at all.
3. You would have to reject the OBSERVED sciences of radioactivity and radiometry. I.e. in order to reject the dating of fossils, you need to reject the notion that radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate. That is a *fundamental* concept and result of quantum physics, but Creationism requires you to believe that radioactive decay is not only variable, but ASTOUNDINGLY variable to account for the differences between the values produced by scientists (geochronolotists), and those assumed (without alternative methods for dating) by Creationists.
4. You would have to reject the OBSERVED science of comparative anatomy. E.g., the FACT that the forelimbs of mammals all have homologous bone structure, despite widely different functions ... from the human hand, to the bat's wing, to whale's flipper, to the mole's digger, to the cat's paw.
5. You would have to reject the OBSERVED science of embryology. To do this, Creationism teaches you to invoke the name "Haeckel" like a mantra, without every really investigating who he was, or what his "error" was, or as if the hand-sketches of one man, represent the entire body of evidence from an entire field of science! Then you can simply ignore the commonalities in the early embryos of all vertebrates, or the common early structures (like pharyngeal arches) that go on to become very different structures in later development, or the structures that disappear during development (like the rear leg buds of dolphins) that show the presence of vestigial genes from past ancestors, and on and on. Just say "Haeckel" as if you know what you're talking about, and shrug your shoulders.
6. You would have to reject the OBSERVED science of taxonomy and cladistics. I.e. the way that all of life can be grouped into a coherent, tree-like hierarchy consistent with traits that are shared because of shared ancestry. E.g. that a subset of vertebrates have jaws, and a subset of those have four limbs, and a subset of those have lungs, and a subset of those have hair and mammary glands, and a subset of those have opposable thumbs, color vision, and no prehensile tail. If each of these traits was distributed at *random* among the vertebrates, instead of in a way consistent with *inheritance*, then evolution would be disproved. But since it isn't this becomes part of the confirming evidence for evolution.
There's more ... a *lot* more. But since the entire premise of this question is itemizing the things that you will REJECT as false or irrelevant, the more I write, the more this becomes an exercise in wasting time.
But that's just a sample.
-----
>"I do not know of anyone, evolutionists or creationists, that rejects physics."
Rejecting the idea that radioactive decays is constant, or that the speed of light is a constant, is a common claim found in Creationist literature. The former is an absolute staple for undermining ALL science of dating objects greater than 10,000 years old by carbon dating, or objects older than 40,000 years old by radiometry (such as ALL fossil dates).
E.g. Kent Hovind: "Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant." http://www.drdino.com/carbon-dating
I'm not talking aout *minor* perturbations in the rate of radioactive decay. But Creationism depends not on the assumption of minor discrepancies but changes in the rate of decay of MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. This is tantamount to abandoning the entire physics of radioactivity out the window.
>"I have never been able to walk through a wall, or swim in solid dirt, or walk on just air."
>"I do not think that I can cut off my arm and grow a new one, or remove my heart, and still live."
I have no idea why you think either of those sentences is relevant.
Solid Gold Dancers rehearsing for the their The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences performance!