2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

I really hope you are right paisano. I certainly know enough republicans who are not social conservatives but do not see an alternative to voting republican.I think the problem for the industry groups is that they might make a short term profit based on shoddy science and ignore the longer term consequences until it is too late and the US advantage in science is eliminated. It is much harder to establish such an advantage and maintain it than to lose it...but I am still hopeful that you are right in your assessment.

quote:

---

What I actually wonder is why creationists need this anyway?

---

Exactly. I don't understand what they could really teach without getting into religious doctrine.God created everything. Pop quiz: Who created everything? God.Of course if they use the drawn out tactics like some Bible studies, they could spend 4 weeks discussing the words "In the beginning."

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

In Anthropology we call this a possitive feedback cycle. It's when one part of society influences another in a particular direction, which in turn (through however many steps) reinforces the original influence.Here's an example:The conservatives attack education -> the public gets dumber -> the public doesn't question what they are spoon fed by the conservatives -> they re-elect them, allowing the conservatives to attack education -> etc.There's no benifit for the conservative agenda to bolster education, as any increase in education can't help be decrease the number of people who question their positions on issues. They only gain power by continuing to attack the system.Hence Bush's program "Every Child Left Behind"

That midget is 1/3 the size of a pine tree! That dude is HUGE!

Randman?You out there? Seems like you disappeared half a thread ago. It's your arguement, care to refute any of these charges?

Give him a break, this is a message board not a chat room, sometimes people don't get a chance to check a thread for a couple of days.TTFN,WK

yeah, but he's been posting regularly this whole time on other threads.

Kinda like the Miocene Humans thread. He forgot about that one REAL quick

And half of Americans don't know that the earth takes a year to go around the sun. Let's not encourage ignorance/stupidity.

Nuggins, I just saw this, and no I have not posted "regularly" and probably won't post something substantial on this until later tonight.I am looking into what we can do here to help the victims of the hurricane and, of course, working. I not only have a job but employees that look to my company to meet the payroll so you can make all the arguments you want, but I'll get to them when I get to them.

Nope. After awhile arguing with some of you guys is like talking to a broken record. I believe the evidence of the Miocene humans indicates at least how bias within the evolutionist community prevents it from properly investigating any "anamolous data" that doesn't fit into their paradigm and dismissing it out of hand.It is true that more research needs to be conducted to determine if the many reports on Miocene era human remains are correct, but it strikes me that this evidence is so much stronger than "evidence" such as the initial skull of Pakicestus being passed off as an aquatic creature, that evos are showing they don't treat the data honestly.And frankly, that's me real beef with evolutionists. I don't think the use of data is reflective of objectivity. I have listed numerous examples of gross overstatements on the parts of evos, and basically all the evos ever do is put up a lot of spin here as an excuse and don't admit to the seriousness in the abuse and overstatements of data.It's not just Haeckel's drawings, or falsely claiming transitionals, or claiming Pakicetus is a whale even though it shares no fully formed distinquishing whale features at all and is a hooved land mammal. It's not just claiming a phylotypic stage as a fact when it was merely an unproven claim. It's not just listing Neanderthal as a sub-human ape to human link when that was not the case, and continuing to do so in textbooks, educational materials, etc,...for a full 30 years after this was known in the 50s. It's not just the way the evos resort to attacking creationists as a defense of their lack of data.It's the pattern of hoaxes, overstatements, exagerrations, and illogical indoctrination methods that are the problem. It appears to me to be a systemic problem in the way ToE is presented, taught, and believed. It's modern myth-making, and I would say that regardless if ToE is true or not. Some myths can even be true, but myth-making and indoctrination, as evolutionism is imo, is not proper science.Now, you guys like to claim it is real science on the peer-review level. I can point to some areas I feel are stretches such as presenting Pakicetus as a whale, but irregardless, imo the peer-review stuff is inconsequential to the popular religion of evolutionism taught in the schools and presented to the public.What we need are the criticisms of evolutionist assumptions presented along-side of the proponents arguments.

blah blah, employees. You know EvC forum is the center of the universe.

That's a good point randman. We should post some infor on who/what/where to donate.

Why would Evos attack creationists as a defense of creationists lack of data?

The Miocene humans thread starts here:http://EvC Forum: Miocene humans -->EvC Forum: Miocene humansApparently randman feels that a Hindu fundamentalist relying on the selective use of highly unreliable data to support his religious beliefs should be considered a reliable source.Meanwhile any site that puts forward a pro-evolution view should be automatically dismissed as "biased".