This settles it.. Never moving down south..

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
BECUASE HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY THIS RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN SCHOOL.

​

AND EVERY TIME YOU MENTION THE DANG HIGHER POWER, YOU ARE MENTIONING A POWER GREATER THAN HUMANS, WHICH WOULD BE WHAT? GOD? EXACTLY. AND SCIENCE DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH FINDING OUT WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR DOES NOT EXIST.

​

Okay, better now. "I disagree and so does about half of the US.", WHERE DOES THIS QUOTE COME FROM? Is it a fact gleaned from one of those religionists magazines? Hmmmm. Think twice on this before beliving this statement is credible.

​

---

See what I mean about not suffering fools gladly?

ArachnophileI listed the survey results to tell you why this is happening in the US. People who vote for boards are the same people who fill out belief surveys.As for creation being science or not the point is we are talking about the origin of life. The key aspects - the actual origin of novelty - has not been solved by modern science and hence in the interim you should not brainwash children into thinking we have.That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue. Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.

Nos: see ^

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Arachnophile

​

I listed the survey results to tell you why this is happening in the US. People who vote for boards are the same people who fill out belief surveys.

​

As for creation being science or not the point is we are talking about the origin of life. The key aspects - the actual origin of novelty - has not been solved by modern science and hence in the interim you should not brainwash children into thinking we have.

​

That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue. Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.

​

You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.

---

#************************************+We could say the same about gravity, quantum mechanics, etc.
So would you propose teaching astrology and any quack idea some uneducated bible thumper in Cobb county Georgia might come up with for gravity in public schools? There is no qualitative difference between creationism and astrology so why not? Or storkism

TB : When there are theories presented the substantiate any creationist ideas, that do not originate with proving the validity of the bible then we can talk, until then I will consider creationism nothing more than a way to validate existance through holy texts. There is no science there, only theology, which has no basis in a science classroom. Leave it to sunday school lectures.Now one more thing..In high school I seriously doubt that they get deep into Origins of Life. Rather discussing the evolution of a species via mutations and the like. So bringing Origins of Life into it really has no bearing. Once these kids get into graduate and post graduate studies they are free to study and learn about whatever form of Origins that suit them. But for general education we should stick with the theories that have evidence to support them, not bring mystical texts, and hypothosies involving a war-god/kind-old-man-figure into our existance.And regardless of how much science has been done in an effort to support creationism, the fact will always remain that creationism is based solely on making a religous text true. There is always a religious motive regardless of whether or not creationists want to admit it. Creationism is a theology, nothing more, nothing less. No matter how you wrap it, no matter how much "evidence" is put forth, no matter how much contrary evidence is ignored, it is not science.The Theory of Evolution has no such foundations. It is based upon observered evidences, and is flexible, allowing to be changed as more evidence is presented, and therefore is actual science.[This message has been edited by RedVento, 10-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Arachnophile

​

I listed the survey results to tell you why this is happening in the US. People who vote for boards are the same people who fill out belief surveys.

​

As for creation being science or not the point is we are talking about the origin of life. The key aspects - the actual origin of novelty - has not been solved by modern science and hence in the interim you should not brainwash children into thinking we have.

​

That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue. Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.

​

You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.

---

Gravity hasn't been completely proven either. Should we start teaching that little blue fairies are what is pulling us down as an alternative as well? Using your logic teaching that the Earth is flat is just as valid as creationism because many people still believe in it as well. What are YOU afraid of.No, modern science hasn't stated that they have proven how life started. You still don't have a clue of how science works.

To TB and other Creationists:Since high school science is usually taught from "approved" texts, what would you list as valid alternative texts to ToE.So far, I've only seen a war of words. How about a war of texts, instead. "He said, she said, they said" is not going to hold up in court. What will hold up are recognized alternative sources from credible authors and publishers.So, how about it. When the science teacher stands up in front of class and says..."Today we will study alternative ToE. Please turn to page...IN WHAT BOOK???(:raig

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mespo:
To TB and other Creationists:

​

Since high school science is usually taught from "approved" texts, what would you list as valid alternative texts to ToE.

​

So far, I've only seen a war of words. How about a war of texts, instead. "He said, she said, they said" is not going to hold up in court. What will hold up are recognized alternative sources from credible authors and publishers.

​

So, how about it. When the science teacher stands up in front of class and says...

​

"Today we will study alternative ToE. Please turn to page...

​

IN WHAT BOOK???

​

(:raig

​

---

If Creationists had their way that book would be the bible.

But that's precisely the point, nos482.If the text has even a hint of religious affiliation, you've got 'em by the..., legally.But just for fun, let me turn the tables on you.The school board calls you up at 6 AM and says the science teacher is sick. They need a substitute teacher for the day. The topic to be covered is alternative ToE, taught at the high school level.So, what 'cha gonna bring to class?(:raig

Maxwell's difference of electic current and electromotive force in the host- virus heritability calculation showing that no VITAL force is needed to explain Crick's instance on Pauling's chemical bond for only strategic reasons to gain more than needed support for the truth value of DNA being Shrodinger's aperiodic crytsal. There could be another chemisty and Bohr new the physiologically but Einstein could not produce it mathmatically instead of telling the students the toxic side effect already was and went down to history of chem.No mention of religion. Better understanding of inheritance. Vindication as a result of creationist days of our lives. The removal of the myth that a virus is anymore alive than the coal in the coal mine and getting down to the problem of toooooo many pariticles that block even transmission genetic processes. Genetic diseases etc.Computer replication is dead and Viruses are not living but Crick and by Extension Provine were able to USE this line to silenece TRUTH in the classroom as well as the public forum. I survived the charge, legal, social and experimental and so can you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mespo:
But that's precisely the point, nos482.

​

If the text has even a hint of religious affiliation, you've got 'em by the..., legally.

​

But just for fun, let me turn the tables on you.

​

The school board calls you up at 6 AM and says the science teacher is sick. They need a substitute teacher for the day. The topic to be covered is alternative ToE, taught at the high school level.

​

So, what 'cha gonna bring to class?

​

(:raig

---

Nothing since there is no legitimate scientific alternative. Guess the kiddies get a free period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Maxwell's difference of electic current and electromotive force in the host- virus heritability calculation showing that no VITAL force is needed to explain Crick's instance on Pauling's chemical bond for only strategic reasons to gain more than needed support for the truth value of DNA being Shrodinger's aperiodic crytsal. There could be another chemisty and Bohr new the physiologically but Einstein could not produce it mathmatically instead of telling the students the toxic side effect already was and went down to history of chem.

​

No mention of religion. Better understanding of inheritance. Vindication as a result of creationist days of our lives. The removal of the myth that a virus is anymore alive than the coal in the coal mine and getting down to the problem of toooooo many pariticles that block even transmission genetic processes. Genetic diseases etc.

​

Computer replication is dead and Viruses are not living but Crick and by Extension Provine were able to USE this line to silenece TRUTH in the classroom as well as the public forum. I survived the charge, legal, social and experimental and so can you.

---

WTF are you talking about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mespo:
But that's precisely the point, nos482.

​

If the text has even a hint of religious affiliation, you've got 'em by the..., legally.

​

But just for fun, let me turn the tables on you.

​

The school board calls you up at 6 AM and says the science teacher is sick. They need a substitute teacher for the day. The topic to be covered is alternative ToE, taught at the high school level.

​

So, what 'cha gonna bring to class?

​

(:raig

---

​

Nothing since there is no legitimate scientific alternative. Guess the kiddies get a free period.

---

*Squawk* Mr. Nos, Mr. Nos, please report to the principal's office...*Squawk*(:raig

Please don't shout in our ears. Go easy on the caps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Arachnophile

​

I listed the survey results to tell you why this is happening in the US. People who vote for boards are the same people who fill out belief surveys.

​

As for creation being science or not the point is we are talking about the origin of life. The key aspects - the actual origin of novelty - has not been solved by modern science and hence in the interim you should not brainwash children into thinking we have.[/QUOTE]

​

First of all, I believe the GA school board wasn't talking about the origin of life. They were talking about alternatives to evolution.

​

Second, please show me a curriculum or school science text which states that scientists have provided any evidence as solid for abiogenesis as they have for for evolution. The texts I have seen are very tentative about it, as they should be.

​

You know, nobody understands how gravity works; there are several competing gravitational theories. Do you propose that we allow physics teachers to teach that nobody really understands gravity, so it might be that God is creating this force?

​

quote:

---

That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue.

---

​

Yet people still believe that the Earth is flat, despite the evidence to the contrary.

​

You want to allow the God of the Gaps fallacy to stand in place of positive evidence in science classrooms; Scientists don't know how life started, therefore Godidit."

​

Sorry, this is poor reasoning and really awful science.

​

quote:

---

Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.

---

​

This is silly.

​

You have been shown umpteen times the evidence for macroevolution. You just ignore it.

​

[QUOTE]You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.[/B]

---

And you have ignored evidence which contradicts your previously-held religious views.The supreme Court has seen through Creationism many times before, and it will continue to do so.The only truly sad thing is that religious crazies will continue to bleed precious time and resources away from educational systems and universities and civil liberties organizations that would be better directed towards other problems.For goodness sake, Creationists can't even agree on how old the Earth is, and the reason they are divided is because they DON'T DO SCIENCE TO REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS, THEY READ A RELIGIOUS BOOK.All this because certain Christians want to shove their religious ideas down every child's throat. If you want to teach your kids that donkeys talk or that the stars are set into the firmament and that the Earth is only 6,ooo years old, you are free to do so in the religious school that you create and pay for yourself.Keep your religion to yourself and out of the public schools.