This settles it.. Never moving down south..

They were talking about this on the CNN show 'Talkback Live' today and most of them don't have a clue of what they were speaking about. They kept using the old "It would only be fair" claim. Man being evolved from apes (We share a common ancestor with the other primates.) and the like. As I've stated before, science education in the USA is a joke.Plus, one of the guests, Curtis Elder, wants to privatize the school system so that they can teach whatever nonsense they want. If science education is a mess now wait until that happens. Here is one of the new subjects to be taught as fact; Flat Earth Geology 101: Don't go near the edge.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Anne

​

Sorry to have touched a raw nerve there but don't you think teaching evolution only is entrenched 'naturalism only' brainwashing? Of course it is. If a teacher can't say - here's evidence that 'God' created then that is pandering to the religion of 'no God'. There are at least two possibilities for how we got here. You're trying to withold one of them from kids. There are plenty of scientific reasons to suspect that 'God' was involved in the origin of life on Earth. If you don't believe that then the brainwashing sure worked on you.

​

The science of origins concerns how we got here, not how we got here only by natural means.

​

And over half of the US believes that God had something to do with creation. And over half believe that evolution may not be true.

​

---

Speaking of being brain washed. For the last time, creationism isn't a valid "alternative" to Evolution for the very fact that creationism isn not and never will be science, it is religiously inspired pseudo-science. Evolution is not about god or how life got started, you moron. You must be one since you just can't (won't) get the idea.To be fair, as seems to be your excuse for imposing your religious beliefs on all, the schools will also have to start teaching astrology, alchemy, Flat Earth Geology, and an Earth centred solar system as "Alternatives" "just to be fair" since many people still believe in these things. Plus they are also going to have to teach ALL creation myths as well, just to be fair, and there are over 150 of them. What are YOU afraid of?Over half for and against? You should learn math as well.Maybe the students should call Miss Cleo to get their marks so the can decide if they should bother studying as well? [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-01-2002]

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?

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.

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.

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?

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:Mammuthus

​

Gravity and QM work just fine. QM works to over 10 decimal places.And the same could be said for Evolution as well. We just don't know exactly why they work as they do that is why they are called a theory, yet can still be considered facts.Macroevolution has not been demonstrated at all let alone quantitaively.Got a few thousand years or more to wait? Please stop confusing macroevoltuion with proven natural You're the one who is confused.selection. We have no problem with you brainwashing kids with Galapogos and finches. It's where you try and push that natural selction (or anything else) has been proven to have generated the genuine novelties that distinguish higher taxa that we claim unjustified brainwashing.It's conspiracy I tell ya!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Well, well, well,

​

If you would actually think about your arguments and things, and honestly try to consider what we are saying instead of spouting something that you have learned and may not necessarily believe. Then maybe I will quit shouting.

​

But, these points have been made over and over and over again not just by me but by others in the forum. And, I am getting tired of typing the reply to your points over and over and over again.

​

So, yes I was quite a little frustrated when I say the point being made by T.B. which has been dealt with over and over and over and over again.

​

Get the point???????????? Get's tiring.

​

---

I think that the main reason why creationists keep spouting the same nonsense is that after awhile they think that we'll just give up and then they can declare a victory over us. That if they say something enough times it will become true. Or, all it takes for something to be true is for them to say it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Nos482,

​

I sure do. It is quite entertaining how stubborn some people can be. Wonder what more amusement lies in the dark places of this forum. Guess, I will have to go and find out.

​

Nice post, in reply to T.B. message that was a reply to my message number 16.

​

---

Maybe we should ask Miss Cleo if (s)he'll ever see the "errors of his/her ways"? [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
RedVento,

​

Thank you for posting this. I noticed that our brilliant debator T.B. has not replied to this message. Is she realizing the futility of her position yet?

​

---

Yes, {s}he's a master "de"bator. (The pun loses some of its punch with the word Mistress.)[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Nos482,

​

Well T.B. has not said anything to your post or the last post before it. That is wonderful, or is she asking the little blue fairies for some more of the "scientific" inspiration?

​

---

She? I thought that I was speaking to a guy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:

​

Exactly.. I am really wondering if creationsists can be honest with themselves about their motives for NEEDING to be created by god.

​

---

Didn't you know that it isn't lying when you do it in god's name? (I know, I can be a bastard sometimes )

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:All

​

I do not support brainwashing of any kind. I used the term 'OK to brainwash about Galapogos' to emphasize that Galapogos is a fact!It is not "brainwashing" to show that something is a fact.Have I said anywhere that I want to teach anyone about specific 'creation myths'. You can't class 'organisms and genes exist in distinct families which is suggestive of creation by a higher being' as a specific creation myth. After making such a statemnt a teacher would then demosntrate the statment with evidence. No Bible, no Koran at all.Without these there is no "evidence" to speak of so you HAVE to talk creation myths. I know this will never happen outside the US south in government schools.Public schools where ALL children can get a fair education.I believe you have seared your own consciences to think that creation cannot be discussed as a possibility for the origin of distinct lifeforms in a science class.Irrelevant. Creation is religiously inspired pseudo-science only, it is not a valid science.If God created just think what stupidity you are arguing.We're not arguing this, you are. If God doesn't exist you simply allowed for the second obvious possibility.Which is? Prove that your god does exist.

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:nos482

​

I agree it is not "brainwashing" to show that something is a fact - next time I will use inverted commas to indicate I am trying to be funny.Don't quit your dayjob. I am not referring to the Bible as evidence of creaiton. I am referring to the distinct lifeform families and distinct gene families as evidence. You seem to think that if God created there could not be any evidence. There is and I told you what we think it is. Since a priori God could have created, and a priori there could be evidence of this then it is scientifically biased to not consider the evidence from that point of view.Who created god?And of course we think the eivdence strongly points that way. You obviously don't but that doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of distinctness in life and genes.And how is this evidence of the existence of your god? For all you know it could be the Big Blue Banana.I never said religion is valid science!Stating that your god is "responsible" is the same thing.All I say is that looking at the genomes and fossils to see if they have tell tale signs of creation is science.Creation implies being made complete as they are now. We know that that isn't true.When outlining possibilities evidence is what we look at, not proof. That is exactly your problem - you think macroevoltuion is proven.It has been, you just don't (won't) want to see it.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-03-2002]