|
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
H the K wrote:
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. You don't have a thimble full of credentials that support your ability to analise said creationism. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. Many billions? Just how many people to you think live on this planet? There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Of which, 2 billion are Christian. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/5/09 5:04 PM, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote: There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. Many billions? Just how many people to you think live on this planet? There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Of which, 2 billion are Christian. Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented" in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science? Bull****. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, 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. Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. It sounds as though you don't consider any of the effort put into the reaching of conclusions as 'science', or the practice thereof. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:16:40 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:48:40 -0400, JohnH wrote: It may turn out that the ability to reason is not limited to humans. Our real unique specialty (in addition to complex reasoning) seems to be the ability to manipulate symbols, record history, learn from it, and pass it on to the next generation. No fair, I said you couldn't use porpoises. Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or not? Instinct and learning. The cat knew the dog had gone to its right or left. It took off. The next available window was in the kitchen. The other attributes just add credence to the theory that something special happened to get man started. I'd argue that quite a few special things happened over a long period of time, hundreds of thousands of years. Every time that one of those special events resulted in a smarter, more adaptable, more survivable being - the resulting offspring tended to do better, live longer and have more offspring with the same special trait that they inherited. There were other "special events" that didn't work out so well. Their offspring didn't do so well and are no longer around. Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years? -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote:
Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented" in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science? Bull****. IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation "theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass muster in some class, but not a science class. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:04:23 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote: There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. Many billions? Just how many people to you think live on this planet? There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Of which, 2 billion are Christian. Muslims? They believe in God, along with Jews, and probably a few others. Change 'many' to 'several' if it pleases you. Or, just call me an asshole. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote:
Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years? Did it? Or are we just now understanding animal development? Hell, even the lowly crow has been witnessed problem solving and using tools. And language? Many, many, species communicate both verbally and physically. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH
wrote: Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or not? Instinct and learning. The cat knew the dog had gone to its right or left. It took off. The next available window was in the kitchen. Who knows. The cat had a way of telling us what he was thinking and it usually involved food or the lack thereof. There were actually several rooms before the kitchen, but the kitchen had the best view of the back yard. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:43:26 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote: Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years? Did it? Or are we just now understanding animal development? Hell, even the lowly crow has been witnessed problem solving and using tools. And language? Many, many, species communicate both verbally and physically. Tell me when one of them develops and produces something to increase its food supply. Guano doesn't count. I'm not going to argue with your idea that other animals have the mental reasoning capacity as human. If you believe so, fine. I *will* agree that some humans seem to have the reasoning capacity of slugs. We have a couple right here. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:38:27 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote: Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented" in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science? Bull****. IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation "theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass muster in some class, but not a science class. No one, but Harry, has suggested presenting anything as an 'alternative' to science. Apparently *you* are restricting the argument to 'Christian creation theory'. I've not done so. In fact, I've used the term 'Higher Power' to allow for any religious belief, alien belief, or Flying Spaghetti Monster belief. 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. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:50:02 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote: Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or not? Instinct and learning. The cat knew the dog had gone to its right or left. It took off. The next available window was in the kitchen. Who knows. The cat had a way of telling us what he was thinking and it usually involved food or the lack thereof. There were actually several rooms before the kitchen, but the kitchen had the best view of the back yard. My cats would have stopped at each window and tracked that sucker to the back yard. Then it would have waved me over to the window and asked me, politely, to go shoot the friggin' dog. My cat's smarter than yours. :) -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH
wrote: Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years? Not to me. Standing upright and having an opposable thumb made humans king of the hill. Then further natural selection developed further mentality. I suspect that if homo sapiens were wiped away, one of the other primates would eventually evolve to take his place. Just like Planet of the Apes. Either that, or God would take care of it. What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. --Vic |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, 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. You would think so wouldn't you? Guess what - it's not. Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science and a story that deserves to be told. And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer reviewed. http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, 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. You would think so wouldn't you? Guess what - it's not. Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science and a story that deserves to be told. And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer reviewed. http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v Yeah, but that's weather, AKA GW. Everybody knows weather isn't science. Scientists might talk about it, but since everybody knows the weatherman can't predict jack beyond a day out, it can't be considered "science." BTW, one of my fav SF short stories had meteorologists navigating in the sun to tweak the weather. They were on a special mission to honor the dying founder of the service, who was laying on a chaise on a tropical beach for his last breaths. They were successful. It snowed on him and only him as he kicked off. Don't remember title or author. Leave that to old alien jarheads. --Vic |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 4, 11:34*am, wf3h wrote:
chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition of creationism: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...the-glad-scien... Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces fierce resistance in some circles..." And in some circles, scientists believe that Darwins "theories" need revised... http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../#previouspost |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. --Vic I never thought of it that way, Vic. i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence. Woe is me.... |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote: Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years? Not to me. Standing upright and having an opposable thumb made humans king of the hill. Then further natural selection developed further mentality. I suspect that if homo sapiens were wiped away, one of the other primates would eventually evolve to take his place. Just like Planet of the Apes. Either that, or God would take care of it. What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. --Vic If God wanted everyone to have a boat, everyone would have a boat. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote: What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. --Vic I never thought of it that way, Vic. i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence. Woe is me.... You, Tim, are the reason God invented spellcheck. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:57:55 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, 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. You would think so wouldn't you? Guess what - it's not. Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science and a story that deserves to be told. And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer reviewed. http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v Yeah, but that's weather, AKA GW. Everybody knows weather isn't science. Scientists might talk about it, but since everybody knows the weatherman can't predict jack beyond a day out, it can't be considered "science." BTW, one of my fav SF short stories had meteorologists navigating in the sun to tweak the weather. They were on a special mission to honor the dying founder of the service, who was laying on a chaise on a tropical beach for his last breaths. They were successful. It snowed on him and only him as he kicked off. Don't remember title or author. Leave that to old alien jarheads. --Vic Vic, I'm getting the feeling you aren't taking this discussion nearly as seriously as you should be. Just be careful next time you eat spaghetti, guy. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 8:50*am, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B *wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B *wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant *wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. *:) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 6:45*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote: What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. --Vic I never thought of it that way, Vic. i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence. Woe is me.... You, Tim, are the reason God invented spellcheck. -- John H All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking. Yeah, and it looks liek i fell from grace! |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 4:04*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote: There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the world. Many billions? *Just how many people to you think live on this planet? * There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. *Of which, 2 billion are Christian. Pardone me, boss. John didn't mention "Christians", but if he did you'ld probably be about right. But don't have to be a Christian to believe in a Creator. So when you consider the faithful Jews and Muslims in there, plus those who discount the Divine, but believe in intelligent design alone, you have more than a couple billion. Way more. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/5/09 7:16 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 4, 11:34 am, wrote: chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition of creationism: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...the-glad-scien... Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces fierce resistance in some circles..." And in some circles, scientists believe that Darwins "theories" need revised... http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../#previouspost And expanded, not intellectually reduced to creationism. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. :) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: snipped for the redemption of Usenet Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. "What-if's" of theory are usually subject to Popper's Theory of Falsification, or are a part of the logic that determines whether theory is falsifiable. This is the tool that opponents of intelligent Design employ to challenge Creationism or ID, Tim. And it's been used successfully in the court room to enjoin school districts to restrict the teaching of Intelligent Design. Since aspects of the metaphysical are not capable of being falsifiable, then the metaphysical does not qualify as having proper scientific foundation and Intelligent Design consequently has no room in the classroom, according to the courts. Popper's Falsifiability is a tidy, proven method for assessing the soundness of theory; but, faith and science are two different, disparate universes. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:48:39 -0400, H the K
wrote: snipped instinctually The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. Naturally, if one wants their children to be receptive to all abstract concepts, secular or otherwise, homeschooling is an excellent option. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 7:48*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the *wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B * *wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B * *wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant * *wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. *:) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God.. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution.. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. * I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. :) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the *teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools. I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of worship. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 7:59*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: snipped for the redemption of Usenet Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. "What-if's" of theory are usually subject to Popper's Theory of Falsification, or are a part of the logic that determines whether theory is falsifiable. *This is the tool that opponents of intelligent Design employ to challenge Creationism or ID, Tim. *And it's been used successfully in the court room to enjoin school districts to restrict the teaching of Intelligent Design. *Since aspects of the metaphysical are not capable of being falsifiable, then the metaphysical does not qualify as having proper scientific foundation and Intelligent Design consequently has no room in the classroom, according to the courts. Popper's Falsifiability is a tidy, proven method for assessing the soundness of theory; but, faith and science are two different, disparate universes. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Yes. "guilty until proven innocent" ?;^ ) |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 8:31*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the *wrote: On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the * *wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B * * *wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B * * *wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant * * *wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. *:) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. * *I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the *teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools. I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of worship. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All I'm sorry if I took it a bit personal,Harry. I'm not a "Crammer" but I believe it (Creationism) should be allowed as an option.or at least not discouraged. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/5/09 9:40 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. :) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the *teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools. I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of worship. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All I'm sorry if I took it a bit personal,Harry. I'm not a "Crammer" but I believe it (Creationism) should be allowed as an option.or at least not discouraged. You'll get no argument from me, so long as creationism is not taught in the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 8:54*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 9:40 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, H the *wrote: On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the * *wrote: On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the * * *wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B * * * *wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B * * * *wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant * * * *wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. *:) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. * * I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the *teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools.. I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of worship. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All I'm sorry if I took it a bit personal,Harry. I'm not a "Crammer" but I believe it (Creationism) should be allowed as an option.or at least not discouraged. You'll get no argument from me, so long as creationism is not taught in the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All harry, I take it you wouldnt' consider it an option. so.... I suppose we could argue. But i won't |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On 10/5/09 9:57 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:54 pm, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 9:40 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. :) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the *teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools. I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of worship. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All I'm sorry if I took it a bit personal,Harry. I'm not a "Crammer" but I believe it (Creationism) should be allowed as an option.or at least not discouraged. You'll get no argument from me, so long as creationism is not taught in the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All harry, I take it you wouldnt' consider it an option. so.... I suppose we could argue. But i won't A *taught* option in the public schools? Absolutely not. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:57:55 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, 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. You would think so wouldn't you? Guess what - it's not. Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science and a story that deserves to be told. And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer reviewed. http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v Yeah, but that's weather, AKA GW. Everybody knows weather isn't science. Scientists might talk about it, but since everybody knows the weatherman can't predict jack beyond a day out, it can't be considered "science." Yeah - but they THINK they can and that's what makes it dangerous. BTW, one of my fav SF short stories had meteorologists navigating in the sun to tweak the weather. They were on a special mission to honor the dying founder of the service, who was laying on a chaise on a tropical beach for his last breaths. They were successful. It snowed on him and only him as he kicked off. Don't remember title or author. Leave that to old alien jarheads. Theodore L. "Ted" Thomas - "The Weather Man" - 1962. You can't stump The Master. :) |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote: What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. I never thought of it that way, Vic. i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence. Woe is me.... For a small fee I would be glad to provide you with the essential inner knowledge to free your mind and increase your intelligence. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
|
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 9:11*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote: What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't. I never thought of it that way, Vic. i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence. Woe is me.... For a small fee I would be glad to provide you with the essential inner knowledge to free your mind and increase your intelligence. Tom, I appreciate the offer, but I have plenty of .22 shells. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Oct 5, 9:00*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 9:57 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:54 pm, H the *wrote: On 10/5/09 9:40 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, H the * *wrote: On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the * * *wrote: On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote: On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the * * * *wrote: On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B * * * * *wrote: On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B * * * * *wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant * * * * *wrote: Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based beliefs of others? Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others? That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if you're teaching a course called science. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science class. We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop? You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day. Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one period a week, then every day. Just sayin'. *:) There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to mention all the other religions of the world. Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then there was something. Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma, but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement. Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:) If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God. But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution. Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise. Science and the scientific method are about provable facts. True enough. Fairly obvious. Everything else is religion or philosophy. I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:) ~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~ The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or, indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except perhaps as an example of religious superstition. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All There's many things that science can't explain, Harry. * * *I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed- in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific anything. however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes. So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in "Intelligent Design" besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory. I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it out of the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration. I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the *teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools. I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of worship. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All I'm sorry if I took it a bit personal,Harry. I'm not a "Crammer" but I believe it (Creationism) should be allowed as an option.or at least not discouraged. You'll get no argument from me, so long as creationism is not taught in the public schools. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All harry, I take it you wouldnt' consider it an option. so.... I suppose we could argue. But i won't A *taught* option in the public schools? Absolutely not. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All Everything in school is "Taught" Harry. Otherwise it wouldn't' be a school. |
vatican astronomer blasts creationism
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:08:51 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: Theodore L. "Ted" Thomas - "The Weather Man" - 1962. You can't stump The Master. :) Hehe. That would be counterproductive. I figured you would produce. Thanks. --Vic |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com