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.

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.

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?

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.

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.