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.

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'.

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.

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 9:28 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.

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.

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...?

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.

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.