vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:06:52 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/6/09 9:51 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:55 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:
To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.


True. Napoleon recognized the power of Christian fait (If I may single
it out) when he said:

""I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.
Between him and every other person in the world
there is no possible term of comparison.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires.
But on what did we rest the creations of our genius?
Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love;
and at this hour millions of people would die for Him."

I'd say he was right.


Millions of people have died for Jesus, a sure sign that the empire was
founded on love.

Millions have died for education, government, eugenics, ethnic
cleansing, and science, a sure sign that yours is a non sequitur.


True, but religion was probably the original or near original perpetrator of
death for a cause.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:47:28 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Babelfish is fun if you don't have anything else to do. Type in a
couple of sentences and translate them in and out of various
languages.

High entertaining sometimes. :)

Probably so but I don't need a computer to mangle Spanish. My goal
is to get to the same level as a 3 year old before I get to 65. :-)

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.



How did everything first start?
I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block .
They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would suggest
to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student, in
English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not prayers are
encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature are included in
curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the local level.



There's a big difference, however, between the knowable and the unknowable.
There will always be something we can't figure out completely.

The pledge in it's original form didn't include "under God." I believe
strongly in church/state separation, but I don't see the big deal of
including those words. You shouldn't be forced to say them. You can always
pause when that part comes up if it bothers you.

Prayers have no place in school. Historical and contemporary religion
comparisons certainly have a place. Popular voting, especially on the local
level, on this isn't appropriate, as it becomes indoctrination for those who
don't believe. They have rights too.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote:


Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our
churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion.
That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for.


Correct. If you want your child to have religious studies, send them to a
church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. Teach them at home, but not in the
schools. They have enough trouble teaching literature, math, science, social
studies, etc.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote:


Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our
churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion.
That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for.

I don't believe anyone has suggested the teaching of religion (as you
mean it) in public schools. Students *should* be taught of the various
important beliefs that exist in the world, and how these beliefs may
have had their effects on history.

A belief held by several billion people should be taught as such in
public schools.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.


I absolutely agree with this. But, there are people who suggest teaching
religion in schools. Lots and lots of them. This is sad and wrong-headed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote:


Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our
churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion.
That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for.

Let me ask you this.

Would it be acceptable to teach the subject of creationism as part of
the social sciences education? If not, why not?


It's not a social science. It's a belief-based subject. I have no problem
with teachers identifying it for what it is, and that it's faith-based, not
science-based. Beyond that, I have strong objection.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 8:11 AM, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.

Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District


Some school districts might allow the teaching of a comparative religions
class in the public school upper grades, but if the teacher or class goes
over the line and starts advocating a religion, parents or the ACLU or
both should slam the practice to the mat.

I really do not understand why anyone wants religious beliefs of any kind
taught in the public schools. When I was a kid, if you were Catholic and
were a public school student, you went to religious classes at your local
church *after* school. Jewish kids did the same - they attended Hebrew
school *after* public school.

First thing in the morning at public school, K-12, we recited the Pledge
of Allegiance. The "under god" nonsense was not added to the pledge until
the mid-1950's, and in my classes, I can't recall anyone who actually said
that while reciting the pledge. We never recited the lord's prayer aloud
as a group, or any other prayer, for that matter.

I do remember one teacher in 10th grade world history discussing the great
numbers of people killed in the name of various religions, and one teacher
in the 8th grade discussing the religions of the ancients.


I was in a Catholic school when I was growing up. I'm not Catholic. There
were many students who weren't - they were there because it was the best
school in the area. It was expensive also. Anyway, when it came time for
"prayer," the Catholic students (who had the permission or requirement from
their parents) went elsewhere (I guess the chapel) for the service. We
continued with our homework or whatever. There was no pressure, even from
the nuns, although I did get my knuckles wrapped a few times. hehe

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:07:34 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:56:05 -0400, JohnRant
wrote:

The origins of man have not been proven. Until they are done so, there
is no harm in presenting what several billion (see, I fixed it)
believe, even if presented only as a belief without proof.

That's fine, just don't present it in a science class because there is
no science to it.

Facts about a scientific theory should be presented. It is a fact that
several billion people believe there was some form of Higher Power
influence in the development of man.

That fact should be presented, along with the other facts.
Furthermore, *only* the facts should be presented. If conjectures,
such as those made here about man's development of intelligence, are
presented as a 'fact' of evolution, then the alternative should also
be presented.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.


Hold on there... I think you're missing the definition of a theory. A
scientific theory is, basically, a guess based on observable facts, not just
a guess. Evolution is an observable fact. The theory part involves the
intricacies but not the fact of it. There's no viable alternative. There's
no "theory" of creationism. There's the faith of creationism, however.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.


How did everything first start?
I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block .
They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would suggest
to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student, in
English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not prayers are
encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature are included in
curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the local level.



There's a big difference, however, between the knowable and the unknowable.
There will always be something we can't figure out completely.

The pledge in it's original form didn't include "under God." I believe
strongly in church/state separation, but I don't see the big deal of
including those words. You shouldn't be forced to say them. You can always
pause when that part comes up if it bothers you.

Prayers have no place in school. Historical and contemporary religion
comparisons certainly have a place. Popular voting, especially on the local
level, on this isn't appropriate, as it becomes indoctrination for those who
don't believe. They have rights too.



How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 1:59 AM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.



How did everything first start?



One of SW Tom's alien ancestors was making a firecracker to show off for
his buddies, and it got a little out of hand...resulting in a Big Bang.



Where did the alien get his start?