vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 8:50*am, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:



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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B
*wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant
*wrote:

Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based
beliefs of others?

Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others?

That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if
you're teaching a course called science.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science
class.

We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based
belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop?

You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students
started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day.
Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one
period a week, then every day.

Just sayin'. *:)

There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis,
not to mention all the other religions of the world.

Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans
and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then
there was something.

Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed
humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma,
but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement.

Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:)

If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God.
But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution.
Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise.

Science and the scientific method are about provable facts.

True enough. Fairly obvious.

Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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


There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 6:45*pm, JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote:

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

--Vic

I never thought of it that way, Vic.

i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence.

Woe is me....

You, Tim, are the reason God invented spellcheck.
--
John H

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

Yeah, and it looks liek i fell from grace!

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 4:04*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with
presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the
world.

Many billions? *Just how many people to you think live on this planet? *
There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. *Of which, 2 billion are
Christian.

Pardone me, boss. John didn't mention "Christians", but if he did
you'ld probably be about right.

But don't have to be a Christian to believe in a Creator. So when you
consider the faithful Jews and Muslims in there, plus those who
discount the Divine, but believe in intelligent design alone, you have
more than a couple billion. Way more.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/5/09 7:16 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 4, 11:34 am, wrote:
chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...the-glad-scien...

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

And in some circles, scientists believe that Darwins "theories" need
revised...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../#previouspost

And expanded, not intellectually reduced to creationism.


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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the wrote:
On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:



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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant
wrote:

Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based
beliefs of others?

Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others?

That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if
you're teaching a course called science.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science
class.

We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based
belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop?

You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students
started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day.
Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one
period a week, then every day.

Just sayin'. :)

There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis,
not to mention all the other religions of the world.

Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans
and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then
there was something.

Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed
humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma,
but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement.

Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :)

If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God.
But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution.
Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise.

Science and the scientific method are about provable facts.

True enough. Fairly obvious.

Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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


There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.


I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it
out of the public schools.


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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
snipped for the redemption of Usenet

Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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


There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.

"What-if's" of theory are usually subject to Popper's Theory of
Falsification, or are a part of the logic that determines whether
theory is falsifiable. This is the tool that opponents of intelligent
Design employ to challenge Creationism or ID, Tim. And it's been used
successfully in the court room to enjoin school districts to restrict
the teaching of Intelligent Design. Since aspects of the metaphysical
are not capable of being falsifiable, then the metaphysical does not
qualify as having proper scientific foundation and Intelligent Design
consequently has no room in the classroom, according to the courts.
Popper's Falsifiability is a tidy, proven method for assessing the
soundness of theory; but, faith and science are two different,
disparate universes.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:48:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

snipped instinctually

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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


There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.


I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it
out of the public schools.

Naturally, if one wants their children to be receptive to all abstract
concepts, secular or otherwise, homeschooling is an excellent option.

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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 7:48*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:



On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the *wrote:
On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B
* *wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant
* *wrote:

Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based
beliefs of others?

Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others?

That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if
you're teaching a course called science.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science
class.

We'll have to disagree on that. * Once you accomodate the faith based
belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop?

You can say that about anything. *Mainstreaming special ed students
started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day.
Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one
period a week, then every day.

Just sayin'. *:)

There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis,
not to mention all the other religions of the world.

Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans
and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then
there was something.

Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed
humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma,
but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement.

Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. *:)

If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God..
But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution..
Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise.

Science and the scientific method are about provable facts.

True enough. Fairly obvious.

Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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

There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

* I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.

I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it
out of the public schools.

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

Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On 10/5/09 9:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:48 pm, H the wrote:
On 10/5/09 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:



On Oct 5, 8:50 am, H the wrote:
On 10/5/09 8:48 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:57:35 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:09:17 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:36:03 -0400, JohnRant
wrote:

Why should public school students be subjected to the faith based
beliefs of others?

Why should students not be told of the beliefs of others?

That's fine if you're teaching a course on religion, not so fine if
you're teaching a course called science.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning the controversy in a science
class.

We'll have to disagree on that. Once you accomodate the faith based
belief of your choice in science class, where do you stop?

You can say that about anything. Mainstreaming special ed students
started off as just one period a day - now it's an entire school day.
Used to be band and drama were after school activities, then one
period a week, then every day.

Just sayin'. :)

There are quite a few different interpretations of the Book of Genesis,
not to mention all the other religions of the world.

Heh. You know it's funny - most religions, faiths, primitive pagans
and assorted heathens mostly agree - first there was nothing and then
there was something.

Now I grant you, the various reinterpretations of Genesis by flawed
humans promoting their own ideas presents conflicting/competing dogma,
but at the essential points, they are pretty much in agreement.

Well except for me that is - I still think it was Aliens. :)

If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, it was caused by God.
But another way to interpret Genesis is with an eye towards evolution.
Try it sometime - it's a fun exercise.

Science and the scientific method are about provable facts.

True enough. Fairly obvious.

Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. :)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) ~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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

There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.

I don't care what you or any other "believer" believes...just keep it
out of the public schools.

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

Thank you for your input, Harry. I'll take that into consideration.


I don't mean that in a negative way, Tim. I simply am opposed to the
*teaching* of any sort of religious beliefs in the K-12 public schools.

I am 100% supportive of private religious beliefs that are taught at
home, in church/synagogue/mosque schools and at the various houses of
worship.




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

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 7:59*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
snipped for the redemption of Usenet





Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

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

There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.

"What-if's" of theory are usually subject to Popper's Theory of
Falsification, or are a part of the logic that determines whether
theory is falsifiable. *This is the tool that opponents of intelligent
Design employ to challenge Creationism or ID, Tim. *And it's been used
successfully in the court room to enjoin school districts to restrict
the teaching of Intelligent Design. *Since aspects of the metaphysical
are not capable of being falsifiable, then the metaphysical does not
qualify as having proper scientific foundation and Intelligent Design
consequently has no room in the classroom, according to the courts.
Popper's Falsifiability is a tidy, proven method for assessing the
soundness of theory; but, faith and science are two different,
disparate universes.

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

Yes.
"guilty until proven innocent"

?;^ )