"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?

"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.

"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.

"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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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