In article ,
says...

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... :)

I'm with you... I there, that's better...

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:21:02 -0400, Jim wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:54:21 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/7/09 9:34 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:11:39 -0400, H the K
wrote:

... and man's inability, so far, to explain
everything in and about the natural world.

I take it you give no credence to the "God" gene?

Heheh. No. None.


Fear of the unknown (weather, fire, famine, et cetera) was the precursor
of religion. Man invented and prayed to gods to protect him from the
vagaries of fate and nature.

Religion evolved. The gods become more or less humanized in appearance,
and became statues that were worshipped. A few thousand years later, as
man's brain further evolved, the necessity for the physical embodiment
of a god dissipated, and the idea of what god was became cerebral and
emotional.

I will not dispute that billions of people take comfort in thinking
there is a god. But that doesn't mean there is one. Today, the idea of a
god serves the same purpose as it dead for our earliest ancestors, as a
protector from the vagaries of fate and nature, and bundled up in that
belief, an idea that there is life beyond death.

Is man a creation of god? Or is god a creation of man?

One thing we do know for su christianity is a creation of man.

This is the official version? If Dean Hamer's version is open to
skepticism, shouldn't your version be open to skepticism?
(Isn't it somewhat remarkable how some people just 'know' things?)

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Krause has "visions". That's where his facts and beliefs come from.

His is certainly conjecture presented rather matter-of-factly.

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

On 10/7/09 2:57 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:59:39 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:21:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


Reasonable approach, but it doesn't solve the problem. They believe
in something other than what is being taught. These are active and
engaged students and directly challenge your presentation with what
they believe to be true.

What do you do?

There is no problem.
Ran into bible thumpers in some college classes.
The profs handled them easily by telling them they were off the
curriculum reservation and disturbing the flow of what was being
taught.
One told a persistent guy flat out, "Hey, I don't come into your
church lecturing about literature. Have the decency to show me the
same respect."
What makes you think crackpots are hard to handle?
Part of growing up as a crackpot is accepting rejection.
And part of growing up as a non-crackpot is recognizing crackpots and
rejecting them.
And I'm sure that in my childhood Baptist church Pastor Anderson would
have easily handled some crackpot disputing his sermon with talk of
evolution and how wrong his sermon was.
Kenny Rogers said it best. "You got to know when to hold them,
and....."
A lectern and a pulpit are different platforms.

--Vic

And the students immediately realize you've COPPED OUT 'cause you
can't answer the question. Your credibility has just been shot.

The teach would answer in the same manner Pastor Anderson would - with
faith in what he's teaching.
If you can't handle - or deflect - a student's questioning with
authority, you shouldn't be teaching.

--Vic



There's no reason for a teacher to respond in detail or at length to a
student question that is inappropriate for the class. If I were teaching
a science class in the public schools and we were discussing evolution
and a student attempted to raise "creationism" as an alternative, I
would simply say "This is a science class and not the place to discuss
religious beliefs." It's no cop-out to deflect the inappropriate.

This is the problem with herring and those who "think" as he does. They
actually believe they have the *right* to interject *their* religion
into public school classrooms. Taliban-esque.

Want to teach religion to K-12 students? Do it at your church or in your
home.






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

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:59:39 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:21:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


Reasonable approach, but it doesn't solve the problem. They believe
in something other than what is being taught. These are active and
engaged students and directly challenge your presentation with what
they believe to be true.

What do you do?

There is no problem.
Ran into bible thumpers in some college classes.
The profs handled them easily by telling them they were off the
curriculum reservation and disturbing the flow of what was being
taught.
One told a persistent guy flat out, "Hey, I don't come into your
church lecturing about literature. Have the decency to show me the
same respect."
What makes you think crackpots are hard to handle?
Part of growing up as a crackpot is accepting rejection.
And part of growing up as a non-crackpot is recognizing crackpots and
rejecting them.
And I'm sure that in my childhood Baptist church Pastor Anderson would
have easily handled some crackpot disputing his sermon with talk of
evolution and how wrong his sermon was.
Kenny Rogers said it best. "You got to know when to hold them,
and....."
A lectern and a pulpit are different platforms.

--Vic

And the students immediately realize you've COPPED OUT 'cause you
can't answer the question. Your credibility has just been shot.

The teach would answer in the same manner Pastor Anderson would - with
faith in what he's teaching.
If you can't handle - or deflect - a student's questioning with
authority, you shouldn't be teaching.

--Vic

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
There's no reason for a teacher to respond in detail or at length to a
student question that is inappropriate for the class. If I were teaching a
science class in the public schools and we were discussing evolution and a
student attempted to raise "creationism" as an alternative, I would simply
say "This is a science class and not the place to discuss religious
beliefs." It's no cop-out to deflect the inappropriate.


Correct. I had a short fiction class in college. Key word: fiction. One
student decided to write a non-fiction article about economics. We had to
read our work in front of the class. Within a minute or so, the prof
realized it was non-fiction, and told him to stop, that he wasn't following
the assignment. He protested, saying that it was an opinion piece. The prof
said... in any case, it's not appropriate. End of discussion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
There's no reason for a teacher to respond in detail or at length to a
student question that is inappropriate for the class. If I were teaching a
science class in the public schools and we were discussing evolution and a
student attempted to raise "creationism" as an alternative, I would simply
say "This is a science class and not the place to discuss religious
beliefs." It's no cop-out to deflect the inappropriate.


Correct. I had a short fiction class in college. Key word: fiction. One
student decided to write a non-fiction article about economics. We had to
read our work in front of the class. Within a minute or so, the prof
realized it was non-fiction, and told him to stop, that he wasn't following
the assignment. He protested, saying that it was an opinion piece. The prof
said... in any case, it's not appropriate. End of discussion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:57:45 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:59:39 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:21:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


Reasonable approach, but it doesn't solve the problem. They believe
in something other than what is being taught. These are active and
engaged students and directly challenge your presentation with what
they believe to be true.

What do you do?

There is no problem.
Ran into bible thumpers in some college classes.
The profs handled them easily by telling them they were off the
curriculum reservation and disturbing the flow of what was being
taught.
One told a persistent guy flat out, "Hey, I don't come into your
church lecturing about literature. Have the decency to show me the
same respect."
What makes you think crackpots are hard to handle?
Part of growing up as a crackpot is accepting rejection.
And part of growing up as a non-crackpot is recognizing crackpots and
rejecting them.
And I'm sure that in my childhood Baptist church Pastor Anderson would
have easily handled some crackpot disputing his sermon with talk of
evolution and how wrong his sermon was.
Kenny Rogers said it best. "You got to know when to hold them,
and....."
A lectern and a pulpit are different platforms.

--Vic

And the students immediately realize you've COPPED OUT 'cause you
can't answer the question. Your credibility has just been shot.

The teach would answer in the same manner Pastor Anderson would - with
faith in what he's teaching.
If you can't handle - or deflect - a student's questioning with
authority, you shouldn't be teaching.

--Vic
A copout with authority.

Good.

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:55:48 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:01:21 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

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

No. A bit cynical, perhaps, but imminently practical.

How long is a VATICAN astronomer going to be around aster making
statements such as the following:

"BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of
superstitious paganism."
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVa...perstition.htm

"the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster""
http://www.christian-forum.net/index...ded&pid=140501

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno

No need to apoligize - you were just misinformed. :)

Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 10:02 PM, tiny wrote:
In ,
says...
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 5, 5:04 pm, Vic 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.
that's kind of like asking me to (ask my wife if I can) cut my hair..
I/she would be lost without it


Maybe washing it once a week would be enough for you.


--

I bet the boys at the race track think that big haired/ponytailed look is
fetching.



"fetching", gay dummy? How cute!

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:47:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Correct. I had a short fiction class in college. Key word: fiction. One
student decided to write a non-fiction article about economics. We had to
read our work in front of the class. Within a minute or so, the prof
realized it was non-fiction, and told him to stop, that he wasn't following
the assignment. He protested, saying that it was an opinion piece. The prof
said... in any case, it's not appropriate. End of discussion.

1 - All economics is fiction. :)

2 - I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. You can not tell a middle
school student - sorry, you're full of ****, now pay attention.

I'm really surprized that none of you has come up with the answer.