vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
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.



estaria, conseguiria, and alto do not compute.

The **** if each one feel has taste of you, the ACLU ****** without
work and the unemployment *********** even but ( did you mean sustanvio?)

Makes even less sense than Johns comment.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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


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

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

I'd say he was right.


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

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

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 10:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:06:52 -0400, H the K
wrote:

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

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


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

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

I'd say he was right.


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

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


The claim was made that jesus founded his empire upon love, and that
millions would die for him.

I agree.

Obviously, the point was far too subtle for your enfeebled mind.




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

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.

If everyone felt that the slightest discussion of religion should
*not* be made into a federal case, the ACLU would be out of work -
thus increasing unemployment.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:11:41 -0400, Jim wrote:

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



estaria, conseguiria, and alto do not compute.

The **** if each one feel has taste of you, the ACLU ****** without
work and the unemployment *********** even but ( did you mean sustanvio?)

Makes even less sense than Johns comment.

Su español es muy un poquito.

Probably a Google translation.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:22:15 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:11:41 -0400, Jim wrote:

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



estaria, conseguiria, and alto do not compute.

The **** if each one feel has taste of you, the ACLU ****** without
work and the unemployment *********** even but ( did you mean sustanvio?)

Makes even less sense than Johns comment.

Su español es muy un poquito.

Probably a Google translation.

Actually, no. Yahoo. :)

I'll admit it.

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

High entertaining sometimes. :)

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:50:04 -0400, Gene
wrote:

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."

Now that's a little harsh don't you think?

It's often said that Jesuits are the vanguard of progressive thinking
in the Church - in particular after the Restoration of 1814/15. While
they could be viewed as "Soldiers of Christ", it's also true that the
Jesuit order has been on the hairy edge of revisionist/reformative
thinking in terms not only of theology, but science and humanities.

The good Brother reflects that thinking - that faith and science can
coexist and each discipline can learn from the other.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

John H Rant wrote:
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.

If everyone felt that the slightest discussion of religion should
*not* be made into a federal case, the ACLU would be out of work -
thus increasing unemployment.

We're on the same page then?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

wrote in message
...
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


I guess the "faith" part of science is the belief that the use of
observation to confirm a hypothesis will bring the truth; whereas, the faith
of religion involves certitude without direct evidence. Science can be a
religion to some, but I think it should be taken with the same grain of salt
that science uses for everything else. Religion should stick to things like
good moral foundations (and be certain in them without imposing ritual and
dogma), and a religious person should act out those foundations in his/her
daily life. Faith has a place in society. It should be learned from
observing those around us who are truly religious (doesn't matter what the
religion is). Science also has a place in society. It should be taught,
since it gives us so much.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
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.


Unfortunately, that message has been lost, especially in recent times.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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


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

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

I'd say he was right.


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

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

High entertaining sometimes. :)

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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


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

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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


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

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

Let me ask you this.

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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


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

Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

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


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

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

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

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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


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



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

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

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



How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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


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



How did everything first start?



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



Where did the alien get his start?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:58:24 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
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.

If everyone felt that the slightest discussion of religion should
*not* be made into a federal case, the ACLU would be out of work -
thus increasing unemployment.

We're on the same page then?

sí, señor.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
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

Then why teach "science"? Lot of science is beliefs. Lots of beliefs that
have fallen by the wayside. Can not move faster than the speed of sound.
Lots say we can not go faster than the speed of light. Even Einstein did
not claim that. Just that it would take infinite energy. How can photon's
get to the speed of light and not use all available energy? You want to
teach only your beliefs. Maybe your beliefs are as screwed up as other
nutcases.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
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.

How did they aquire that instint?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 2:36 PM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 1:59 AM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

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

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


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



How did everything first start?



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



Where did the alien get his start?



From his mommy and daddy, of course.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:46:40 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
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.

How did they aquire that instint?


It was given them by Whomever.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 2:42 PM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
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

Then why teach "science"? Lot of science is beliefs. Lots of beliefs that
have fallen by the wayside. Can not move faster than the speed of sound.
Lots say we can not go faster than the speed of light. Even Einstein did
not claim that. Just that it would take infinite energy. How can photon's
get to the speed of light and not use all available energy? You want to
teach only your beliefs. Maybe your beliefs are as screwed up as other
nutcases.



With the passage of time, scientific knowledge expands, and theories are
either proven, expanded, discarded or wait their turn for further proof.
There is not a scintilla of proof for "creationism" or more important,
for the existence of "god." It's all faith-based.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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


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



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

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

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



How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?


Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest, as
I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty I'm
sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?


Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest, as
I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty I'm
sure.

Careful what you stick your nose into sweetie. Screw with a sajjada and
you could lose your head over it.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?


Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest,
as I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty
I'm sure.

Careful what you stick your nose into sweetie. Screw with a sajjada and
you could lose your head over it.


Well, Jimmy Bob, I think I'll do what I think it right.


--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?

Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest,
as I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty
I'm sure.

Careful what you stick your nose into sweetie. Screw with a sajjada and
you could lose your head over it.


Well, Jimmy Bob, I think I'll do what I think it right.


You go girl.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:27:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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

Perhaps, if you include all creationist theories, not just the Christian
one, the Greek Chaos, etc. If you limit yourself to one creation theory,
you run right into the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:49:39 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:27:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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

Perhaps, if you include all creationist theories, not just the Christian
one, the Greek Chaos, etc. If you limit yourself to one creation theory,
you run right into the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

One supported by billions of people would be pretty important, no?
Should a theory espoused by a couple hundred snake charmers in
southeastern Maryland also be mandated?

You honestly believe that teaching students about religions is an
attempt to 'establish' a religion?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:25:51 -0400, John H Rant wrote:


You honestly believe that teaching students about religions is an
attempt to 'establish' a religion?

It isn't important whether I believe it or not. It is important whether
the Courts believe it, and they do.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 5:31 PM, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:25:51 -0400, John H Rant wrote:


You honestly believe that teaching students about religions is an
attempt to 'establish' a religion?

It isn't important whether I believe it or not. It is important whether
the Courts believe it, and they do.

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



The rightwingtards would like nothing better than to turn this country
into a christian theocracy. I wouldn't give them a millimeter.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:31:42 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:25:51 -0400, John H Rant wrote:


You honestly believe that teaching students about religions is an
attempt to 'establish' a religion?

It isn't important whether I believe it or not. It is important whether
the Courts believe it, and they do.

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

Your example has no bearing on the discussion. No one here is
demanding the 'teaching' of creationism, but instead the fact that
billions of people believe in the possibility - which hasn't been
disproven.

Of course, the 'evolution' of mankind hasn't been proven either.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:49:39 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:27:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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

Perhaps, if you include all creationist theories, not just the Christian
one, the Greek Chaos, etc. If you limit yourself to one creation theory,
you run right into the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

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?

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 5:45 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:49:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:27:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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

Perhaps, if you include all creationist theories, not just the Christian
one, the Greek Chaos, etc. If you limit yourself to one creation theory,
you run right into the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

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?


Tell them that discussion of their religious beliefs is appropriate at
home, in religious school, or at their house of worship, but not in a
public school.



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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:27:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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

Perhaps, if you include all creationist theories, not just the Christian
one, the Greek Chaos, etc. If you limit yourself to one creation theory,
you run right into the establishment clause of the First Amendment.


I like that idea!

--
Nom=de=Plume

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/6/09 5:58 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:27:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


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

Perhaps, if you include all creationist theories, not just the Christian
one, the Greek Chaos, etc. If you limit yourself to one creation theory,
you run right into the establishment clause of the First Amendment.


I like that idea!



Perhaps we should include voodoo and all the "less popular" religious
beliefs. After all, no matter what they are, they are all the same, and
based upon nothing more than folk tales, oral histories, and superstition.



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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:14:30 -0400, Jim wrote:

You go girl.

I give up - I can't follow the thread anymore.

Damn... :)