vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:35:20 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

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.

I didn't mean blow holes in your head to increase ventilation
resulting in cooling that increases your intellect.

~~ sheesh ~~

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

Obviously boat ownership implies a higher level of development, and
the more boats the better. :-)

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:45:52 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

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.

All hail me!! :)

I actually ruined a Trivia Night at one of the local bars once. One
of my friends entered me in a science fiction trivia contest and told
me at the last minute when we supposedly went out to "dinner".

25 contenders in the First Round. 10 after the Second. None after
the third - took me less than fifteen minutes to clean 'em out. :)

Only time the grand was won in the Challenge Question to boot. Want to
know what it was? No?

I'll tell you anyway.

"Kim and his family travel to Earth on the Dauntless. Which Dauntless
was she?"

Answer: The 4th. E.E. "Doc" Smith - "Children of The Lens".

You should have seen the look on the Trivia Master's face. Hell, you
should have seen the look on the Bar Manager's face. :)

Oddly, I've never been invited back for Scifi Nite.

I wonder why?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:02:59 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

Obviously boat ownership implies a higher level of development, and
the more boats the better. :-)

Damn straight. :)

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:28:26 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:59:41 -0500, wrote:

"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.

Interesting you should bring him up. I always liked Hawking's
explanation of Falsification - "No matter how many times the results
of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the
next time the result will not contradict the theory."

Which kind of dovetails with another of his more famous statements:
“The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that
events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a
certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”

Oh this could get really deep 'ya know? :)

And how! This stuff can make your head spin. The philosophy of
science isn't necessarily an easy thing to get one's head around. I
remember reading a speech by Einstein, once, that he gave as a
commencement address at the University of Minnesota(?) in which he
insinuated that the notion of a guiding force behind physical reality
was not something that should be readily dismissed, if I recall the
gist of his speech correctly. Though, he said it with a succinct
eloquence and diplomacy that I could never hope to match. I think
Einstein was a bit of a philosopher, too, much like Hawking is a bit
of one.

--
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, 5 Oct 2009 18:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

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"

?;^ )

Or at least until the black swan is discovered :). I'm not as much
puzzled now as I was in time past by the insistence of some
irreligionists and iconoclasts that science necessarily nullifies
faith (as in the practice of a personal faith), where the term
"superstition" is pejoratively applied to its application. To contend
that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a trump suit
in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

But, I'll have to confess, there are some devotee's of the Christian
faith that flirt with the ludicrous, a la Ken Ham.

--
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, 10:08*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:02:59 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

Obviously boat ownership implies a higher level of development, and
the more boats the better. * *:-)

Damn straight. *:)

hey, I've got three. am I evolving to a higher level of development?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 10:52*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 18:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim


But, I'll have to confess, there are some devotee's of the Christian
faith that flirt with the ludicrous, a la Ken Ham.



yep.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

Obviously boat ownership implies a higher level of development, and
the more boats the better. * *:-)

Damn straight. *:)

hey, I've got three. am I evolving to a higher level of development?

You're getting there. :-)

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"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?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:02:59 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

Obviously boat ownership implies a higher level of development, and
the more boats the better. :-)

Damn straight. :)

Maybe not. Renting a boat when you need it implies a higher level of
development. owning a hole in the water may be stupid. Fun but stupid.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:41:54 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:08:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400, JohnH
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? There are
quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis, not to
mention all the other religions of the world. Science and the
scientific method are about provable facts. Everything else is
religion or philosophy.

BTW, I let you off easy. Science may attempt to prove facts. It has
not done so. Science has yet to show when, where, or how man came to
be, let alone with an ability to reason.

Aliens. It's the only answer.

Where did the Aliens get their boost?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.



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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

Which is a curiosity because a lot of what they believe to be "fact"
and "science" are also articles of faith.

Amusing in some ways.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:04:09 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"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.



When they develop a cultivator to keep out the weeds, let me know.
Otherwise it's just instinct.
--
John H

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 6:53 AM, Jim wrote:
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.



Science may someday solve the mystery of the origins of the universe and
life. Religion never will.

The funny thing is that science itself evolves as mankind learns more
about his surroundings. In terms of solving the supernatural, all
religion does, really, is change the form of its deities every couple of
thousand years.

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.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:53:00 -0400, Jim wrote:

Weather or not

You don't want to teach weather in school?

HERESY!!! APOSTATE!!! BLASPHEMER!!!

heh, heh, heh...

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

H the K wrote:
On 10/6/09 6:53 AM, Jim wrote:
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.



Science may someday solve the mystery of the origins of the universe and
life. Religion never will.

The funny thing is that science itself evolves as mankind learns more
about his surroundings. In terms of solving the supernatural, all
religion does, really, is change the form of its deities every couple of
thousand years.

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.

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:53:00 -0400, Jim wrote:

Weather or not

You don't want to teach weather in school?

HERESY!!! APOSTATE!!! BLASPHEMER!!!

heh, heh, heh...

Thank you. I've made that blunder before. You'd think I'd learn.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.




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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

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

"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.
--
John H

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:11:09 -0500, 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

Hmmm - interesting.

I found this quote from Kenneth Miller, the lead witness, very telling
and very similar to my own views:

1) "[i]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary
theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory
actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two
daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they
been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly
forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious,
because I want my children to keep their religious faith."

Sounds good to me.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 8:27 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0500,
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?


No. It would be the teaching of a superstitious religious belief.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

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
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.

No comprende.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:19 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

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
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.

No comprende.

La mierda, si cada una sintiera tiene gusto de usted, el ACLU estaría
sin trabajo y el desempleo conseguiría incluso más alto.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 10/6/09 6:53 AM, Jim wrote:
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.

Science may someday solve the mystery of the origins of the universe and
life. Religion never will.

The funny thing is that science itself evolves as mankind learns more
about his surroundings. In terms of solving the supernatural, all
religion does, really, is change the form of its deities every couple of
thousand years.

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.

Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.

Good point. How does one teach the Reformation without it?

Or the Crusades.

Or the history of Ancient Egypt or Mayan civilization for that matter.

Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.

Oddly, I agree with you with the caveat being that certain universal
standards must apply across the nation.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:55:53 -0400, 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.

Which is a curiosity because a lot of what they believe to be "fact"
and "science" are also articles of faith.

Amusing in some ways.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Tom.

--
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 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.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 9:50 AM, Gene wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...d-scientist/1/


He'll probably suffer the fate of his predecessor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-debate.html

These guys haven't figured out their job isn't to be scientists, but
to be PR folks at the will and pleasure of their "Holy Father."

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles, ......

Using Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution to discuss modern
science is a lot like trying to explain electricity in the way
Benjamin Franklin understood it.


Darwin's theories, not surprisingly, have evolved and have been combined
and broadened. Here's a good place to start:

Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, by Julian Huxley.

Your analogy, by the way, is spot-on.





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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 6, 8:50*am, Gene wrote:

Using Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution to discuss modern
science is a lot like trying to explain electricity in the way
Benjamin Franklin understood it.
--


Good point, Gene.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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.





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