On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:21:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


Reasonable approach, but it doesn't solve the problem. They believe
in something other than what is being taught. These are active and
engaged students and directly challenge your presentation with what
they believe to be true.

What do you do?

There is no problem.
Ran into bible thumpers in some college classes.
The profs handled them easily by telling them they were off the
curriculum reservation and disturbing the flow of what was being
taught.
One told a persistent guy flat out, "Hey, I don't come into your
church lecturing about literature. Have the decency to show me the
same respect."
What makes you think crackpots are hard to handle?
Part of growing up as a crackpot is accepting rejection.
And part of growing up as a non-crackpot is recognizing crackpots and
rejecting them.
And I'm sure that in my childhood Baptist church Pastor Anderson would
have easily handled some crackpot disputing his sermon with talk of
evolution and how wrong his sermon was.
Kenny Rogers said it best. "You got to know when to hold them,
and....."
A lectern and a pulpit are different platforms.

--Vic

And the students immediately realize you've COPPED OUT 'cause you
can't answer the question. Your credibility has just been shot.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:01:21 -0400, tiny
wrote:

In article 21f4b407-4f49-4843-a8b2-
, says...

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.

Harry only wants his brand of socialism taught in schools. His type
can't handle open debate so they just ban or mock opposing opinions..
Still don't see why intelligent folks would fool with the fat little
****er...

Keep your eyes open - most don't.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 18:33:16 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"tiny" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"JohnRant" wrote in message
...
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.

Ants farm. Bring in grass and leaves that symbiotic bacteria grow on,
giving the ants the final food product.

Do they understand the process or is it just instinct?

Where did they get the instinct? Even humans have instincts. A baby will
normally not crawl across a clear panel between tables. Where did that
instinct come from. When we lived in trees, and learned not to fall out of
them?


Well, it was probably from a Higher Power of some sort, since it's
otherwise unexplainable. Right?

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:47:42 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:45:57 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Ok - fair enough. Let's take a hypothetical journey.

You're a Middle School science teacher and as part of the biology
section you teach the section on evolution. Two students, solid A
honor roll types tell you that they believe in the New Earth model as
part of their religious upbringing - that it is a tenant of their
belief system.

What do you do?

I would point out that they are entitled to their belief system, as
are others who believe differently. I would also point out the
differences between a belief system and the scientific method.

Most of the problems arise when one group proclaims that their
particular belief system is the only one that should have standing,
demands that it be taught to everyone, and tries to influence
legistation and other governmental functions to that end.

The founding fathers of this country were very aware of this
phenomenon thanks to ongoing struggles with the Church of England over
the years, and that is why we have constitutional guarantees regarding
the separation of church and state. If you love this country, you
have to love the constitution also. They are inseparable but some
people just don't get it.

Ah, a breakthrough!

You would at least acknowledge that there are other 'belief systems'
than the purely evolutionary theory.

Good.

In article ,
says...

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.

Well unless it's wica or islam, right??

On 10/7/09 8:42 AM, tiny wrote:
In inet,
says...

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.

Well unless it's wica or islam, right??


It's wicca, not wica. Crikey.

And wicca is no more or less bizarre than any other religion based upon
superstition, folk tales, and man's inability, so far, to explain
everything in and about the natural world.

I had no idea wicca was being practiced in the public schools. Of
course, it has been a long time since I was a schoolchild in your state.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

... and man's inability, so far, to explain
everything in and about the natural world.


I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On 10/7/09 9:34 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

... and man's inability, so far, to explain
everything in and about the natural world.


I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene?


Heheh. No. None.


Fear of the unknown (weather, fire, famine, et cetera) was the precursor
of religion. Man invented and prayed to gods to protect him from the
vagaries of fate and nature.

Religion evolved. The gods become more or less humanized in appearance,
and became statues that were worshipped. A few thousand years later, as
man's brain further evolved, the necessity for the physical embodiment
of a god dissipated, and the idea of what god was became cerebral and
emotional.

I will not dispute that billions of people take comfort in thinking
there is a god. But that doesn't mean there is one. Today, the idea of a
god serves the same purpose as it dead for our earliest ancestors, as a
protector from the vagaries of fate and nature, and bundled up in that
belief, an idea that there is life beyond death.

Is man a creation of god? Or is god a creation of man?

One thing we do know for su christianity is a creation of man.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:54:21 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/7/09 9:34 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

... and man's inability, so far, to explain
everything in and about the natural world.


I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene?


Heheh. No. None.


Fear of the unknown (weather, fire, famine, et cetera) was the precursor
of religion. Man invented and prayed to gods to protect him from the
vagaries of fate and nature.

Religion evolved. The gods become more or less humanized in appearance,
and became statues that were worshipped. A few thousand years later, as
man's brain further evolved, the necessity for the physical embodiment
of a god dissipated, and the idea of what god was became cerebral and
emotional.

I will not dispute that billions of people take comfort in thinking
there is a god. But that doesn't mean there is one. Today, the idea of a
god serves the same purpose as it dead for our earliest ancestors, as a
protector from the vagaries of fate and nature, and bundled up in that
belief, an idea that there is life beyond death.

Is man a creation of god? Or is god a creation of man?

One thing we do know for su christianity is a creation of man.

This is the official version? If Dean Hamer's version is open to
skepticism, shouldn't your version be open to skepticism?
(Isn't it somewhat remarkable how some people just 'know' things?)

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:54:21 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/7/09 9:34 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

... and man's inability, so far, to explain
everything in and about the natural world.

I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene?

Heheh. No. None.


Fear of the unknown (weather, fire, famine, et cetera) was the precursor
of religion. Man invented and prayed to gods to protect him from the
vagaries of fate and nature.

Religion evolved. The gods become more or less humanized in appearance,
and became statues that were worshipped. A few thousand years later, as
man's brain further evolved, the necessity for the physical embodiment
of a god dissipated, and the idea of what god was became cerebral and
emotional.

I will not dispute that billions of people take comfort in thinking
there is a god. But that doesn't mean there is one. Today, the idea of a
god serves the same purpose as it dead for our earliest ancestors, as a
protector from the vagaries of fate and nature, and bundled up in that
belief, an idea that there is life beyond death.

Is man a creation of god? Or is god a creation of man?

One thing we do know for su christianity is a creation of man.

This is the official version? If Dean Hamer's version is open to
skepticism, shouldn't your version be open to skepticism?
(Isn't it somewhat remarkable how some people just 'know' things?)

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Krause has "visions". That's where his facts and beliefs come from.