|
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 8:58 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. http://tinyurl.com/kxdwumn Creationism is being taught as a legitimate alternative to science in many public and public-funded schools, especially in the south. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. I have no objection to the balanced teaching of comparative religion classes no earlier than what is or was considered junior high. I remember in the 7th grade at Sheridan studying "ancient" history, and the culture and religious beliefs of really early peoples, and then the Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Christians, et cetera. But no effort was ever made to "push" any of these beliefs. In fact, I recall a rabbi coming in to Sheridan to teach a couple of classes about Judaism and its beliefs, and then a priest and a nun coming in from nearby St. Aedans to do the same about Catholicism. These were simply factual presentations about history and beliefs...no "selling" or negative comparisons to other religions were allowed. Under those sorts of groundrules, I would have no objection to a discussion of creationism. But I would object to it being taught as an "alternative" to reality. I've never understood the push for creationism, since there really is nothing underpinning it but religious superstition and faith...no facts or science whatsoever. I had a college roommate who became an Episcopal priest. He was a very bright guy and he thought creationism was so much "happy horse****," as he referred to it. And when I lived in Kansas City, I was very friendly with a couple of co-workers who were grads of a Jesuit college in the area, again very bright guys, and they certainly weren't "deniers" of evolution. But, then, they had the advantages of a Jesuit education. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 5:18 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Sure you do, Harry, Sure you do. That's why you bring it up in here. And that's why it agitates you. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. And that's how our government is set up to no be pro- any specific religion. Nor anti- as well. It 'agitates' me when facts are misrepresented. There is the observed fact of evolution; the change of heritable characteristics in populations over generations, and there is the theory of evolution that explains the mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Public schools should not be anti-science. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:44:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. Who here, besides you, continuously throws anti-religious **** into our paths? You whine about religion being shoved down your throat - where? Certainly not here, as you are the one who continues the postings. Try to keep the 'Dark Tetrad' in mind. You post your crap only to incite arguments and anger. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:23:06 -0800, thumper wrote:
On 2/19/2014 5:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Sure you do, Harry, Sure you do. That's why you bring it up in here. And that's why it agitates you. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. And that's how our government is set up to no be pro- any specific religion. Nor anti- as well. It 'agitates' me when facts are misrepresented. There is the observed fact of evolution; the change of heritable characteristics in populations over generations, and there is the theory of evolution that explains the mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Public schools should not be anti-science. I believe Tim's 'anti' referred to religion, not science. Remember, according to Harry's famous study, 61% of Americans *don't* believe the 'Big Bang Theory'. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 10:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:44:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. Who here, besides you, continuously throws anti-religious **** into our paths? You whine about religion being shoved down your throat - where? Certainly not here, as you are the one who continues the postings. Try to keep the 'Dark Tetrad' in mind. You post your crap only to incite arguments and anger. Never looked at that, not interested in W'hines ****-flinging or your reposting of it. Sorry. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:42:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. I have no objection to the balanced teaching of comparative religion classes no earlier than what is or was considered junior high. Good. So why not shut the **** up with your anti-religious postings? |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 10:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:42:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. I have no objection to the balanced teaching of comparative religion classes no earlier than what is or was considered junior high. Good. So why not shut the **** up with your anti-religious postings? Once again, John, you apparently think I give a **** about what you want or think or would like me to do. It'll be easier for you to come out of the closet than it will be for you to convince me to bend to your will. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 9:28 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 8:58 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. http://tinyurl.com/kxdwumn Creationism is being taught as a legitimate alternative to science in many public and public-funded schools, especially in the south. I wonder how many of those schools are actually teaching it as "the answer" as opposed to those who discuss it as part of an overall social issue. Also, as the edit at the end of the article points out, the list of schools are those where state law permits teaching of creationism but does not necessarily reflect those who actually teach it. If the Supreme Court banned state sponsored school prayer back in 1963 it is difficult to imagine any school system pushing creationism onto students. I can imagine a handful of rouge teachers getting carried away but not an approved course by the school system administrators. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 9:42 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. I have no objection to the balanced teaching of comparative religion classes no earlier than what is or was considered junior high. I remember in the 7th grade at Sheridan studying "ancient" history, and the culture and religious beliefs of really early peoples, and then the Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Christians, et cetera. But no effort was ever made to "push" any of these beliefs. In fact, I recall a rabbi coming in to Sheridan to teach a couple of classes about Judaism and its beliefs, and then a priest and a nun coming in from nearby St. Aedans to do the same about Catholicism. These were simply factual presentations about history and beliefs...no "selling" or negative comparisons to other religions were allowed. Under those sorts of groundrules, I would have no objection to a discussion of creationism. But I would object to it being taught as an "alternative" to reality. I've never understood the push for creationism, since there really is nothing underpinning it but religious superstition and faith...no facts or science whatsoever. I had a college roommate who became an Episcopal priest. He was a very bright guy and he thought creationism was so much "happy horse****," as he referred to it. And when I lived in Kansas City, I was very friendly with a couple of co-workers who were grads of a Jesuit college in the area, again very bright guys, and they certainly weren't "deniers" of evolution. But, then, they had the advantages of a Jesuit education. We are in agreement. I intended to mention the age group appropriate in my previous post and was thinking the same thing. 9th grade minimum. Other than that, what you said is exactly what I was trying to say and I think discussing it as an alternative for some people to evolution is appropriate. Just no implied or direct conclusions. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 5:06 AM, Tim wrote:
thumper wrote: It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." Thumper, I'm not discounting anything you've said.For the most part I'm in agreement. The problem that I have is when people boast that if science can't or at least hasn't prove something then that concept is total nonsense. I haven't said that. Not necessarily nonsense but its place and emphasis in a science curriculum should be roughly proportional to the supporting evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. But till has a looooong way to go. Is that really where you want to hang your hat...? |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:45:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 10:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:44:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. Who here, besides you, continuously throws anti-religious **** into our paths? You whine about religion being shoved down your throat - where? Certainly not here, as you are the one who continues the postings. Try to keep the 'Dark Tetrad' in mind. You post your crap only to incite arguments and anger. Never looked at that, not interested in W'hines ****-flinging or your reposting of it. Sorry. ""Dark Tetrad": Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)." Yes you have. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. What makes you so fearful of religion and women? |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. Keep the faith baby. The proof might be right around the corner. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 10:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:44:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. Who here, besides you, continuously throws anti-religious **** into our paths? You whine about religion being shoved down your throat - where? Certainly not here, as you are the one who continues the postings. Try to keep the 'Dark Tetrad' in mind. You post your crap only to incite arguments and anger. Actually, it's his landlady who's been shoving it down his throat and he can't do anything about it. That's why he's ****ed. |
Well, of course...
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:
When science *CAN* prove there *IS NOT* a Divine Creator- I'll believe that science. I don't want to pick on you but it's a good example. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not those who doubt the claim due to lack of evidence. If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage that directs the universe and farts rainbows I hope you wouldn't just believe it. ;) |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 10:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 9:28 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:58 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. http://tinyurl.com/kxdwumn Creationism is being taught as a legitimate alternative to science in many public and public-funded schools, especially in the south. I wonder how many of those schools are actually teaching it as "the answer" as opposed to those who discuss it as part of an overall social issue. Also, as the edit at the end of the article points out, the list of schools are those where state law permits teaching of creationism but does not necessarily reflect those who actually teach it. If the Supreme Court banned state sponsored school prayer back in 1963 it is difficult to imagine any school system pushing creationism onto students. I can imagine a handful of rouge teachers getting carried away but not an approved course by the school system administrators. All sorts of strange things happen in schools in the backwater states. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 9:28 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 8:58 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. http://tinyurl.com/kxdwumn Creationism is being taught as a legitimate alternative to science in many public and public-funded schools, especially in the south. What horse****. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 11:09 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I have no idea. I do recall he was a lot more "artsy-craftsy" than most of us in our junior high days, and that by the time we all managed to get to high school, he was out of the closet as I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 10:44 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. Polio used to be real too, but we cured that. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:30:45 -0500, HanK wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. What makes you so fearful of religion and women? He '...don't give a damn what "the religious" believe...', yet daily provides us with his hourly dose of anti-religious venom. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:43:47 -0800, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: When science *CAN* prove there *IS NOT* a Divine Creator- I'll believe that science. I don't want to pick on you but it's a good example. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not those who doubt the claim due to lack of evidence. If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage that directs the universe and farts rainbows I hope you wouldn't just believe it. ;) Perhaps he should have said , "When science *can* prove the big bang theory, I'll believe that science!" |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 11:09 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I have no idea. He dated a couple of the gay guys in high school and he dated "straight" girls. He made no effort to hide his bisexuality. I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. I'm not sure "shoved down" your throat is really the way you wanted to put it, eh? All I see are gays who want the same rights and privileges afforded to the rest of society in pertinent areas. Some gays are flamboyant, no doubt about it. But so far, no gays have come to my front door to attempt conversions. I don't decry students learning that many people believe in a creator. I simply don't want *any* sort of religious teaching or belief impositioning taking place in the public schools. As I posted earlier, I have no problem with neutral, non-advocacy teaching about religions in a comparative way, as in "Jews believe this, Catholics believe this, Muslims believe this, Buddhists believe this, and this is how those beliefs came about and evolved." As for your hypersensitivity about gays, it kind of reminds me of other people on your side of the political fence who were loudly opposed to gays, gay rights, gays coming out, gays being public about being gay, and then we found out *they* were gay. John, I've known gay people for most of my life. Not one has put the moves on me. I doubt they'd be sexually interested in you, either. That being said, if I were single, I'd wouldn't mind dating Ellen DeGeneres. I love funny women. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 11:43 AM, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: When science *CAN* prove there *IS NOT* a Divine Creator- I'll believe that science. I don't want to pick on you but it's a good example. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not those who doubt the claim due to lack of evidence. If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage that directs the universe and farts rainbows I hope you wouldn't just believe it. ;) Wait, I bought my unicorn on eBay and was told it was the only one. I took that on faith, too. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:51:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 11:09 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I have no idea. I do recall he was a lot more "artsy-craftsy" than most of us in our junior high days, and that by the time we all managed to get to high school, he was out of the closet as I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. I assume the rest of the post was too spot on for your 'arguments'. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 12:12 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:51:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 11:09 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I have no idea. I do recall he was a lot more "artsy-craftsy" than most of us in our junior high days, and that by the time we all managed to get to high school, he was out of the closet as I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. I assume the rest of the post was too spot on for your 'arguments'. No, I thought it was not worth a comment. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:05:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 11:09 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I have no idea. He dated a couple of the gay guys in high school and he dated "straight" girls. He made no effort to hide his bisexuality. I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. My goodness, you *did* address the rest of the post. I'm not sure "shoved down" your throat is really the way you wanted to put it, eh? I put gaydom being 'shoved down my throat' the same way you say religion is 'shoved down your throat'. Besides, isn't gay oral sex the norm? Why do you make a big deal of it? All I see are gays who want the same rights and privileges afforded to the rest of society in pertinent areas. Some gays are flamboyant, no doubt about it. But so far, no gays have come to my front door to attempt conversions. Not necessary. In this country we use gays to make political statements. I don't decry students learning that many people believe in a creator. I simply don't want *any* sort of religious teaching or belief impositioning taking place in the public schools. As I posted earlier, I have no problem with neutral, non-advocacy teaching about religions in a comparative way, as in "Jews believe this, Catholics believe this, Muslims believe this, Buddhists believe this, and this is how those beliefs came about and evolved." No one here is suggesting that students should be taught to believe in a religious concept. As for your hypersensitivity about gays, it kind of reminds me of other people on your side of the political fence who were loudly opposed to gays, gay rights, gays coming out, gays being public about being gay, and then we found out *they* were gay. Hypersensitivity? You are much more 'hypersensitive' to the idea of religion than I am about gays. And, gaydom is pushed on TV much, much more than religion - unless you tune into the preachers. John, I've known gay people for most of my life. Not one has put the moves on me. I doubt they'd be sexually interested in you, either. Harry, I've known gay people for most of my life. Have two nieces who are gay. Had a gay guy renting a room in our house when I was in high school - a great friend until he died of AIDS many years ago. None have ever put moves on me. One guy tried in the Bahamas. He shouldn't have touched my arm. He probably knew a good dentist stateside. That being said, if I were single, I'd wouldn't mind dating Ellen DeGeneres. I love funny women. Me either. She's a boon to all mankind. Doing her part to control population and decrease the world's carbon footprint. Is she 'married'? If so, she should get the 'Same Sex Union Tax Credit'. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 11:43 AM, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: When science *CAN* prove there *IS NOT* a Divine Creator- I'll believe that science. I don't want to pick on you but it's a good example. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not those who doubt the claim due to lack of evidence. If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage that directs the universe and farts rainbows I hope you wouldn't just believe it. ;) Of course not. That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that pink unicorns fart in monochrome. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:21:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 12:12 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:51:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 11:09 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:44:05 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: Being "gay" is a reality for many, including public school kids. It's important their school buds realize that being gay is real. Creationism is delusional religious nonsense. You sure seem overly sensitive to "gay" issues, John. Are you one of those still in the closet gay conservatives who protests gays too much? :) I recall one junior high/high school buddy who was sexually ambidextrous, way back in the dark ages when I was a lad. He was a great guy and no one gave him any **** for it. I guess he's lucky he didn't go to your high school. So he was born both ways? I have no idea. I do recall he was a lot more "artsy-craftsy" than most of us in our junior high days, and that by the time we all managed to get to high school, he was out of the closet as I am sensitive to having gaydom shoved down my throat, and that of kids. What if I were a 'closet gay conservative'? You use that term as a put down, yet act as though gaydom is the norm. It's not. The GLBT community represents only about 3% or our population. It is not the norm. Those who believe in a Creator, on the other hand, represent about 74% of our population. Yet you decry students being taught that such a belief exists. I'm sure the little jibes you and Don make about me possibly being gay do something for you. But as I have nothing against gays themselves, they really just emphasize your anti-gay beliefs. I assume the rest of the post was too spot on for your 'arguments'. No, I thought it was not worth a comment. Did you reach that conclusion before or after your long comment? |
Well, of course...
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:43:47 AM UTC-6, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: When science *CAN* prove there *IS NOT* a Divine Creator- I'll believe that science. Me too! I don't want to pick on you but it's a good example. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not those who doubt the claim due to lack of evidence. If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage that directs the universe and farts rainbows I hope you wouldn't just believe it. ;) | Well, I won't doubt that there may be one in there, but I'm not curious enough to check it out... |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 2:20 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:43:47 AM UTC-6, thumper wrote: If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage that directs the universe and farts rainbows I hope you wouldn't just believe it. ;) Well, I won't doubt that there may be one in there, but I'm not curious enough to check it out... Yikes...! :-O |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com