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.

On 10/5/09 5:04 PM, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:


There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with
presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the
world.

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


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.




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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote:


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.

IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting
the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation
"theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking
about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the
First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you
were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass
muster in some class, but not a science class.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:38:27 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote:


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.

IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting
the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation
"theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking
about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the
First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you
were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass
muster in some class, but not a science class.

No one, but Harry, has suggested presenting anything as an
'alternative' to science. Apparently *you* are restricting the
argument to 'Christian creation theory'. I've not done so. In fact,
I've used the term 'Higher Power' to allow for any religious belief,
alien belief, or Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

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

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

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.

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.

"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

In article ,
says...

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.

But you would teach evolution which has about as much science behind it
as global taxing...

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:04:23 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:38:48 -0400, JohnH wrote:


There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and there's nothing wrong with
presenting the viewpoint of many billions of people throughout the
world.

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

Muslims? They believe in God, along with Jews, and probably a few
others.

Change 'many' to 'several' if it pleases you.

Or, just call me an asshole.
--
John H

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

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.