Louisiana school district to teach creationism

[dali_70]

Thanks to J. Spaceman over on the T.O. group for posting this.

LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring
the possibility of incorporating the teaching of “creationism” in the
public school system’s science classes.
During the board’s meeting Thursday, several board members expressed
an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the
study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school
classrooms.
The discussion came up during a report on the pupil progression plan
for the 2010-11 school year, delivered by Jan Benton, director of
curriculum.
Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act
enacted
last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she
termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.
Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach
evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on
this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone
with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Read it at http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html

I kind of hope they do it. When they move to implement the teaching of
creationism in the schools, who's version are they going to teach?
It'll be funny to watch the baptists denouncing the catholics who are
ridiculing the evangelicals who are trying to crucify the later day
saints who are laughing at just how silly the mormons are. It's just
too bad it'll be their children who suffer with a third world science
education. Livingston Parish is going to have a surplus of qualified
burger flippers in its future.

[e_space]

didnt the big bang create the universe? if so, what created the big
bang? or did it evolve from a little bang? or a no bang? just
wondering ... ;-^)

On Jul 24, 11:27 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to J. Spaceman over on the T.O. group for posting this.
>
> LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring
> the possibility of incorporating the teaching of “creationism” in the
> public school system’s science classes.
> During the board’s meeting Thursday, several board members expressed
> an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the
> study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school
> classrooms.
> The discussion came up during a report on the pupil progression plan
> for the 2010-11 school year, delivered by Jan Benton, director of
> curriculum.
> Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act
> enacted
> last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she
> termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.
> Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach
> evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on
> this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone
> with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -

> Read it athttp://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html

[4praise]

Yeah, kids that are taught creationism (like Francis Collins) have no
chance of understanding science.

On Jul 24, 8:27 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to J. Spaceman over on the T.O. group for posting this.
>
> LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring
> the possibility of incorporating the teaching of “creationism” in the
> public school system’s science classes.
> During the board’s meeting Thursday, several board members expressed
> an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the
> study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school
> classrooms.
> The discussion came up during a report on the pupil progression plan
> for the 2010-11 school year, delivered by Jan Benton, director of
> curriculum.
> Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act
> enacted
> last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she
> termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.
> Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach
> evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on
> this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone
> with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -

> Read it athttp://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html

[Bob T.]

On Jul 24, 3:06 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, kids that are taught creationism (like Francis Collins) have no
> chance of understanding science.

They do, but it's more difficult. It's like kids that are taught
racism - sure they have a chance to overcome it, but it's hard work to
unlearn something you've been taught since childhood, no matter how
false it is.

- Bob T

> > burger flippers in its future.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[4praise]

Is there some evidence that it makes it more difficult?

Was Newton a great scientist? Did he have to overcome the teaching
from the bible?

Perhaps the teaching that we are the intentional creation of a loving
God is a big enough positive in a child's life that it compensates for
the parts that you believe are unscientific.

I think that kids that are taught evolution and Darwinism as a world
view have much more to overcome than ones that are taught the story in
Genesis.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 24, 5:01 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there some evidence that it makes it more difficult?

Seems self evident to me.

> Was Newton a great scientist?

Yes.

>  Did he have to overcome the teaching from the bible?

Yes. The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent, so no one had to wonder
why we stick to the earth instead of floating around in the air - God
did it.

> Perhaps the teaching that we are the intentional creation of a loving
> God is a big enough positive in a child's life that it compensates for
> the parts that you believe are unscientific.

No. The end (happy children) does not justify the means (lying). There
are other ways to help children be happy besides lying to them. And I
don't think it is healthy fr the culture as a whole to teach people to
be delusional.

> I think that kids that are taught evolution and Darwinism as a world
> view have much more to overcome than ones that are taught the story in
> Genesis.

Not when it comes to understanding why we exist.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bob T.]

On Jul 24, 5:01 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there some evidence that it makes it more difficult?
>
> Was Newton a great scientist?  Did he have to overcome the teaching
> from the bible?
>
> Perhaps the teaching that we are the intentional creation of a loving
> God is a big enough positive in a child's life that it compensates for
> the parts that you believe are unscientific.
>
> I think that kids that are taught evolution and Darwinism as a world
> view have much more to overcome than ones that are taught the story in
> Genesis.

Why do you think it's better for children to believe lies instead of
the truth?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[4praise]

Why do we exist?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 24, 9:38 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do we exist?

Because we evolved, which is why we should teach Darwinism in science
class, and Christianity as mythology.

[Max]

Hi Dali,

This is simply religious 'wedge' politicking at work.

It really looks like the US is steadily losing it's constitutionally
based dictum of secularism (it's intent, not the prescriptive words
'separation of state & church).

If they want to 'study' creationism, put it in the 'ethics' or
'philosophy' class, not in the science class.

I would also imagine that the efficacy of teaching 'creationism'
within the bounds of 'critical thinking' would be pretty much
reflective of the school boards bias & the vigour of the teachers who
are employed by the school board to teach it.

The trick will be to find science teachers who believe in Creationism
or at least are prepared to discuss creationism in an unbiased manner.

I wonder if the Mathematics curricula is ever so heavily 'actioned'
and manipulated as Science is eh?

Scary, nonetheless.

On Jul 24, 11:27 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to J. Spaceman over on the T.O. group for posting this.
>
> LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring
> the possibility of incorporating the teaching of “creationism” in the
> public school system’s science classes.
> During the board’s meeting Thursday, several board members expressed
> an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the
> study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school
> classrooms.
> The discussion came up during a report on the pupil progression plan
> for the 2010-11 school year, delivered by Jan Benton, director of
> curriculum.
> Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act
> enacted
> last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she
> termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.
> Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach
> evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on
> this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone
> with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -

> Read it athttp://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html

[Max]

Are you asking about the mechanics of how humans evolved to what we
are today or are you asking why, is there a purpose to our existence?
If it's the former, Neil answered that succinctly. If your query is
the latter, let me know.

[e_space]

its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from? if you know
the answer to that, then where did the stuff we evolved from
originate? did it evolve too? if so, from what? has everything that
exists today always been here in some form or another?

scientists say that the big bang originated from something the size of
a pin head ... where did that pin head thingy come from? did it evolve
from nothing? if so, why and how? i asked some other such questions
previously, and i find it interesting that nobody responded to
them ...

its fine to scoff at creationism, but in reality, nobody knows the
origin of "stuff". this makes me wonder about skeptics who seem to
definitively state that creationism is bunk when even science does not
have the answers ... could we refer to this as biased skepticism
"created" from disbelief in the religious promotions of ancient men?
if so, is it rational to form opinions about our origin based solely
from those words?

[Simon Ewins]

[4praise]
> Why do we exist?

Why does there need to be a reason?

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly
in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that
is not there."
[Eric Hoffer, Passionate State of Mind, 1955]

[e_space]

i didnt infer that ... why are you?

On Jul 25, 7:35 am, scattered <quasiscatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 24, 5:42 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > didnt the big bang create the universe? if so, what created the big
> > bang? or did it evolve from a little bang? or a no bang? just
> > wondering ... ;-^)
>

> Oh no - a gap in knowledge! Must be filled by a god of course -
> nothing else will do the trick ("Only God can bang out a big bang" -
> Christian apologist Peter Kreeft).

[Simon Ewins]

[e_space]

> i didnt infer that ... why are you?

The speaker implies.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."
[Jerry Garcia]

[e_space]

your mind implies ... i didnt answer the questions i asked ... why
dont you give it a shot?

[Simon Ewins]

[e_space]
> your mind implies ...

The listener infers, the speaker implies. Bad grammar disrupts the flow
of the sentence destroying the idea that it is carrying.

"Love is a state in which a man sees things most decidedly as they are not."
[Nietzsche]

[e_space]

Wikipedia: "The conclusion drawn is also called an inference" ... you
have drawn a conclusion about my comments so you are inferring what i
meant, however wrong you may be ... please try not to overly concern
yourself with grammar [especially when you are wrong], and get on with
the meat of the matter ...

iow, answer my questions simon ... or just admit that you dont know
the answers ... and try to move on from whatever implications or
inferences your mind has associated with my words ... or not
[shrug] ...

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 4:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from?

Earlier life forms, like australopithicus afarensis.

> if you know
> the answer to that, then where did the stuff we evolved from
> originate?

From the Big Bang.

> did it evolve too?

Life evolves. The Big Bang isn't alive.

> if so, from what?

Moot question.

> has everything that
> exists today always been here in some form or another?

Possibly.

> scientists say that the big bang originated from something the size of
> a pin head ... where did that pin head thingy come from?

Don't know yet (if we ever will), but there are several plausible
theories, including vacuum fluctuation and the Big Crunch. The
Christian hypothesis (God did it) is impossible because the facts
(e.g. the universe was not created in six days) contradict the Bible.

> did it evolve from nothing?

First let's define "nothing" in a physical sense (since you're talking
about physics). Is a vacuum "nothing"?

> if so, why and how? i asked some other such questions
> previously, and i find it interesting  that nobody responded to
> them ...

I didn't see where you asked theses questions, but I don't blame
anybody for not responding to you if they saw it, since you have a
habit of turning serious discussions into childish displays. Or maybe
they have no interest in your questions.

> its fine to scoff at creationism, but in reality, nobody knows the
> origin of "stuff".

Sure they do. The Big Bang. The energy from that event cooled down to
form the particles of the matter that you see (and see with) today.
That is what E=MC2 means - matter is bound energy, and energy is
unbound matter. The energy of the Big Bang formed "stuff."

> this makes me wonder about skeptics who seem to
> definitively state that creationism is bunk when even science does not
> have the answers ...

Creationism is bunk because it contradicts the science that we know.

I don't know how you're qualified to make that statement anyway,
considering your doctrine is "don't learn from others." On that basis,
you have no clue what we know from science anyway, and it shows.

> could we refer to this as biased skepticism
> "created" from disbelief in the religious promotions of ancient men?

No. Science is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of
facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws" (from dictionary.com). That Creationism contradicts
these facts and truths means that Creationism is bunk.

[Simon Ewins]

[e_space]

> Wikipedia: "The conclusion drawn is also called an inference"

Correct.

The listener (one drawing the conclusion) infers. Wiki is right again.

However, the speaker implies.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"If you're going to tickle, use a feather not a whip."
[Audrey Foris, C"est l"esprit du coq rouge (Red Rooster Musings, trans.)]

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 24, 3:06 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, kids that are taught creationism (like Francis Collins) have no
> chance of understanding science.

Do you think they ought to teach demon possession in medical school?
Do you think they ought to teach astrology in astronomy classes?

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 25, 4:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVYzqUUlBVg

If you haven't already added this guys Page from my Facebook Page ....

He's hilarious.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[Bob T.]

On Jul 25, 4:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from? if you know
> the answer to that, then where did the stuff we evolved from
> originate? did it evolve too? if so, from what? has everything that
> exists today always been here in some form or another?

We evolved from microspopic life forms, through single-celled
organisms, through fish, through primitive mammals, through ancestral
apes, to us.

>
> scientists say that the big bang originated from something the size of
> a pin head ... where did that pin head thingy come from? did it evolve
> from nothing? if so, why and how? i asked some other such questions
> previously, and i find it interesting  that nobody responded to them ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

>
> its fine to scoff at creationism, but in reality, nobody knows the
> origin of "stuff". this makes me wonder about skeptics who seem to
> definitively state that creationism is bunk when even science does not
> have the answers ... could we refer to this as biased skepticism
> "created" from disbelief in the religious promotions of ancient men?
> if so, is it rational to form opinions about our origin based solely
> from those words?

"Creationism" does not refer to the idea that God created everything
billions of years ago. For Christians, "Creationism" is the idea that
God created humans in our present forms, with no evolution involved.
It contradicts known fact in many ways.

- Bob T

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 6:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 4:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVYzqUUlBVg
>
> If you haven't already added this guys Page from my Facebook Page ....
>
> He's hilarious.

That *is* funny, thanks TG. Did he hire Stephen Hawking to do the
voice over?

[Trance Gemini]

Sounds like it doesn't it? Lol.

I'm currently negotiating a High Priestess position in the Landover Baptist Church ;-)

[e_space]

still dont want to answer the questions huh?

[e_space]

saying that we evolved from australopithicus afarensis does not answer
the question of where they came from ... even as it relates to the big
bang, because nobody has answered the question of where the big bang
come from ...

plausible theories abound and none of them answer the questions so its
still open to speculation and opinions ... i.e. the questions remain
despite the theories that scientists and others have come to ...

knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge are vastly different things ...
if science can't answer the questions, then they should remain
questions and all the speculation and theories in the world dont sort
it out ... to raise the questions of "facts" and "truths" when none
exist is just smoke in the wind ... stating ones opinion about
something that has not been proven is ok, but when boiled down, its
all just speculation ...

[e_space]

yes ... and i believe in evolution of life on earth, but thats not
what im asking ... im asking how did the pin head sized thingy that
supposedly caused the big bang come into being? im not expecting an
answer btw ...

i am also not asking about creationism in xtian terms ...

[Deidzoeb]

On Jul 25, 7:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from? if you know
> the answer to that, then where did the stuff we evolved from
> originate? did it evolve too? if so, from what? has everything that
> exists today always been here in some form or another?
>
> scientists say that the big bang originated from something the size of
> a pin head ... where did that pin head thingy come from? did it evolve
> from nothing? if so, why and how? i asked some other such questions
> previously, and i find it interesting  that nobody responded to
> them ...
>
> its fine to scoff at creationism, but in reality, nobody knows the
> origin of "stuff". this makes me wonder about skeptics who seem to
> definitively state that creationism is bunk when even science does not
> have the answers ...

You don't need to have the perfect answer to a question in order to
say that some proposed answers are unsubstantiated. We don't need to
know exactly how the first life started in order to say that there's
no proof it was imbued with spirit by Zeus.

[Simon Ewins]

[e_space]

> still dont want to answer the questions huh?

The questions in this thread are of no interest to me at all.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"May your passion be the kernel of corn stuck between your molars,
always reminding you there's something to tend to."
[Jeb Dickerson]

[Bob T.]

On Jul 25, 8:27 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> yes ... and i believe in evolution of life on earth, but thats not
> what im asking ... im asking how did the pin head sized thingy that
> supposedly caused the big bang come into being? im not expecting an
> answer btw ...

If you read the wiki article on the Big Bang you will know as much as
I do on the subject.

>
> i am also not asking about creationism in xtian terms ...

But that's what "creationism" means. If you think that God created
the universe in a big bang 14 billion years ago, that's not
"creationism".

- Bob T

> > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -

[4praise]

> Why do you think it's better for children to believe lies instead of
> the truth?

I don't.

On Jul 24, 9:32 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:01 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there some evidence that it makes it more difficult?
>

> > Was Newton a great scientist?  Did he have to overcome the teaching
> > from the bible?
>

> > Perhaps the teaching that we are the intentional creation of a loving
> > God is a big enough positive in a child's life that it compensates for
> > the parts that you believe are unscientific.
>

> > I think that kids that are taught evolution and Darwinism as a world
> > view have much more to overcome than ones that are taught the story in
> > Genesis.
>

> Why do you think it's better for children to believe lies instead of
> the truth?
>
> - Bob T

>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 3:15 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 24, 3:06 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yeah, kids that are taught creationism (like Francis Collins) have no
> > > > chance of understanding science.
>

> > > They do, but it's more difficult.  It's like kids that are taught
> > > racism - sure they have a chance to overcome it, but it's hard work to
> > > unlearn something you've been taught since childhood, no matter how
> > > false it is.
>

> > > - Bob T
>

> > > > > burger flippers in its future.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

i dont recall using the word zeus ... or any diety ... i didnt even
use the word spirit ... other than that, any comments on the
questions?

[e_space]

i see ... and that is because you cannot answer them i presume? ...
yet you do not believe in creationism ... so you have come to a
conclusion without proof ... a habit that quite apparently you do not
hold as valid by those who have opinions other than your own ... funny
how that works isnt it?

[e_space]

youre right about the word creationism, but how matter came into
existence still hasnt been proven, so whether or not it was created is
vague at best ... i have no opinion about it myself, just asking
questions to see the responses ...

[e_space]

just wondering but, if you have no interest in the questions, why are
you commenting in the thread?

On Jul 25, 12:02 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

[4praise]

> > Why do we exist?
>
> Because we evolved, which is why we should teach Darwinism in science
> class, and Christianity as mythology.

Because we evolved" does not really address the question of "why we
exist".

Before I was born, God knew me. God knew that I would like computers
so He let me be born in the time when technology was increasing on the
earth. He knew that I would love logic and and reasoning and that I
might enjoy conversations with others so He led me to this group
(serendipitously). He knew you too and he loves you.

He has plans that go far beyond this "puff of smoke" that we call "our
life". Our lives last for a nanosecond here but we will live
forever.


On Jul 24, 9:41 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:38 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do we exist?
>
> Because we evolved, which is why we should teach Darwinism in science
> class, and Christianity as mythology.

>
> > On Jul 24, 6:15 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 24, 5:01 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is there some evidence that it makes it more difficult?
>

> > > Seems self evident to me.

>
> > > > Was Newton a great scientist?
>

> > > Yes.

>
> > > >  Did he have to overcome the teaching from the bible?
>

> > > Yes. The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent, so no one had to wonder
> > > why we stick to the earth instead of floating around in the air - God
> > > did it.

>
> > > > Perhaps the teaching that we are the intentional creation of a loving
> > > > God is a big enough positive in a child's life that it compensates for
> > > > the parts that you believe are unscientific.
>

> > > No. The end (happy children) does not justify the means (lying). There
> > > are other ways to help children be happy besides lying to them. And I
> > > don't think it is healthy fr the culture as a whole to teach people to
> > > be delusional.

>
> > > > I think that kids that are taught evolution and Darwinism as a world
> > > > view have much more to overcome than ones that are taught the story in
> > > > Genesis.
>

> > > Not when it comes to understanding why we exist.

>
> > > > On Jul 24, 3:15 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 24, 3:06 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yeah, kids that are taught creationism (like Francis Collins) have no
> > > > > > chance of understanding science.
>
> > > > > They do, but it's more difficult.  It's like kids that are taught
> > > > > racism - sure they have a chance to overcome it, but it's hard work to
> > > > > unlearn something you've been taught since childhood, no matter how
> > > > > false it is.
>

> > > > > - Bob T
>

> > > > > > > burger flippers in its future.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

[e_space]

> just wondering but, if you have no interest in the questions, why are
> you commenting in the thread?

Fixing your grammar.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"You become responsible forever for what you've tamed."
[Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry]

[Bob T.]

On Jul 25, 9:40 am, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why do we exist?
>
> > Because we evolved, which is why we should teach Darwinism in science
> > class, and Christianity as mythology.
>

> Because we evolved" does not really address the question of "why we
> exist".
>
> Before I was born, God knew me.  God knew that I would like computers
> so He let me be born in the time when technology was increasing on the
> earth.  He knew that I would love logic and and reasoning and that I
> might enjoy conversations with others so He led me to this group
> (serendipitously).   He knew you too and he loves you.
>
> He has plans that go far beyond this "puff of smoke" that we call "our
> life".  Our lives last for a nanosecond here but we will live forever.

Blah, blah, blah... we already know that some Christians believe the
silliest things in great detail, despite the utter lack of evidence
for them. How do you like the services there at the Church or Wishful
Thinking?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 8:23 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> saying that we evolved from australopithicus afarensis does not answer
> the question of where they came from ...

They came from earlier hominids, which descended from arboreal apes,
etc, all the way back to the first chemical that first began
reproducing with heredity that is the common ancestor of all life.

> even as it relates to the big
> bang, because nobody has answered the question of where the big bang
> come from ...

That is irrelevant to why we should not teach Creationism in science
class.

Do you think we should teach astrology in astronomy classes?
Do you think we should teach demon possession in medical school?

> plausible theories abound and none of them answer the questions so its
> still open to speculation and opinions ...

Right. But we can eliminate Christianity, since Christianity (the
universe was *not* made in six days) contradicts reality. And
plausible theories are not abundant - the plausible theories are the
rare few that don't contradict the laws of nature.

So, are you a Creationist?

> i.e. the questions remain
> despite the theories that scientists and others have come to ...

Right. So why teach Creationism since we know it is false?

> knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge are vastly different things ...

So what? What's your point?

> if science can't answer the questions, then they should remain
> questions and all the speculation and theories in the world dont sort
> it out ...

Clearly you don't understand science. Scientists come up with
hypothesis, and then they try to figure out ways to test these
hypothesis. Ignoring the questions would defeat the whole spirit of
science. If humanity was as uncurious as you are we'd still be running
for our lives from large mammals.

And if youi didn't have your doctrine of willful ignorance ("don't
learn from others") you'd know that science has a long history of
sorting questions out.

> to raise the questions of "facts" and "truths" when none
> exist is just smoke in the wind ...

Facts and truths exist - they are called the laws of nature. The more
we understand them, the closer we come to understanding the origins of
the universe. We know what the first nanoseconds of the Big Bang were
like; we're recreating energies like that in laboratories. Your policy
of willful ignorance ("don't learn from others") make you particularly
unqualified to comment on what is fact and what is true.

> stating ones opinion about
> something that has not been proven is ok, but when boiled down, its
> all just speculation ...

Wrong. Not all of it is speculation, and when it is, some speculation
is valuable (i.e. it is plausible, for instance when it doesn't
violate the laws of nature) and some speculation is worthless (i.e.
when it contradicts reality, like Creationism or your out of body
experiences with 'god').

> > > from those words?- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

fix yer own ;-^)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 9:40 am, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why do we exist?
>
> > Because we evolved, which is why we should teach Darwinism in science
> > class, and Christianity as mythology.
>

> Because we evolved" does not really address the question of "why we
> exist".

Yes it does.

> Before I was born, God knew me.

Please provide objective, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence that
God exists, and that he knew you before you were born. In the
meantime, I'll continue to think that knowing someone before they are
even born violates the laws of nature (subset - biology).

> God knew that I would like computers

So by that "logic," no one born before the 1980's would have liked
computers. I have a hard time thinking that Einstein (for one) would
not have liked computers.

> so He let me be born in the time when technology was increasing on the
> earth.

Technology has been increasing since humans evolved.

>  He knew that I would love logic and and reasoning

If you loved logic and reasoning you would appreciate the value of
empirical evidence, but you don't.

> and that I
> might enjoy conversations with others so He led me to this group
> (serendipitously).  

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies are not evidence that God did
anything.

> He knew you too and he loves you.

You've given me no reason to think that is anything other than your
delusion.

> He has plans that go far beyond this "puff of smoke" that we call "our
> life".

In no way are you addressing the fact that we evolved from earlier
life forms, or that Creationism should be taught in schools.

> Our lives last for a nanosecond here but we will live
> forever.

Our lives last an average of 70 years or so, and your wishful thinking
is not sufficient for me to believe that either of us will live

[e_space]

still having a hard time with parables are ya?

i dont see where i said that they should ignore the questions, do
you?

you probably shouldnt determine that something is worthless while you
are dealing from a position of ignorance ... just more wild
speculation on your part ... but thats your MO right?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 9:37 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> youre right about the word creationism, but how matter came into
> existence still hasnt been proven,

Yes it has. Matter came into existence when the superheated plasma of
the Big Bang cooled down into particles that formed the elements that
comprise matter.

> so whether or not it was created is
> vague at best ...

Only to someone whose fundamental doctrine is willful ignorance
("don't learn from others").

> i have no opinion about it myself, just asking
> questions to see the responses ...

You've already stated your opinion, which is "don't try to answer
these questions."

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 11:31 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> still having a hard time with parables are ya?

What parable?

> i dont see where i said that they should ignore the questions, do you?

Yes, right there where you said "if science can't answer the
questions, then they should remain questions."

> you probably shouldnt determine that something is worthless while you
> are dealing from a position of ignorance ...

If you're referring to Creationism, we're not dealing from a position
of ignorance. Evolution is fact, and natural selection is a process
that does not require a Creator.

> just more wild
> speculation on your part ...

Where, exactly, is the "wild speculation"?

> but thats your MO right?

And once again you demonstrate that you are incapable of serious
conversation and have nothing of substance to contribute, in this case
to the topic "Louisiana school district to teach creationism." You are
incapable of defending your position because your pathological
narcissism causes your feelings to be hurt whenever anyone criticises
your argument, so you lash out like a little baby.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Steve in Virginia]

Thanks Trance - that was hilarious!

Steve

On Jul 25, 9:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

what created the big bang? the little pin head thingy? please be
thorough neil ...

[e_space]

they remain questions until they are answered??? nowhere did i suggest
they quit trying to figure it out ... please read a little more
carefully neil ...

how am i lashing out sonny? whats the matter ... dont you like people
dealing with you as you deal with them? awwwww

[Steve in Virginia]

I actually posted something on this before. Trying to understand the
universe at the first fraction of a microsecond prior to the
expansion may never be possible. At that moment, and even a few
microseconds into the cosmic expansion, the physical laws that govern
this space-time geometry were not stabilized and could have taken any
number of possible avenues. Check out the work of Alan Guth. The
concept of unstable primordial physical laws comes out of his
research. Unfortunately (at least in understanding the events prior
to the big bang), we live in a universe with a space-time geometry
that may never afford us the capability to fully understand the
universe before the big bang. The very physical nature of this
universe and the mathematics that we presently employ may not give us
the tools necessary to investigate beyond this sphere. Of course that
does not mean that we may not eventually develop methods and sciences
that will. But for now it becomes a moot question. We cannot extend
our inquiry into places where the very tools and methods of that
inquiry cannot function. But I am optimistic that one day we will.

Steve

"Science flies you to the Moon, and religion flies you into
buildings."

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Steve in Virginia <chandl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Trance - that was hilarious!

Steve

Glad you enjoyed it Steve :-)

[4praise]

> If you loved logic and reasoning you would appreciate the value of
> empirical evidence, but you don't.

Yes I do. Some people are able to hold conflicting ideas in their
head while they work it out and/or wait for additional evidence.

"The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only
common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal
after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the
cosmos."
Stephen Jay Gould

[e_space]

well put, and i agree ... i was just bringing up some points to see
the reaction ... im not a fan of statements that sound factual, but
are actually speculation, however well founded on existing scientific
theory ... i happen to like the word 'create' and, although not a fan
of the biblical creationism promotion (especially the 6 day thingy,
which i stopped considering to mean 6 - actual 24 hour days many years
ago), am simply raising the question that something may have been
'created' ... or it may not have been ... since i dont know, i will
not say one way or the other, unlike some who scoff at the suggestion
based on their own opinions, more than scientific fact ... if they
have this opinion ONLY in regards to the literal biblical text of
such, i happen to agree ...

On Jul 25, 4:03 pm, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[e_space]

some people dont need evidence to state things as fact ... i think you
have witnessed that here already

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 12:58 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> they remain questions until they are answered??? nowhere did i suggest
> they quit trying to figure it out ... please read a little more
> carefully neil ...

Okay, then why on earth would you say that scientists should do what
they are already doing, which is not pretending that speculation is
truth, like Creationists do?

> how am i lashing out sonny?

By acting out like a poopy little baby when people disagree with you,
Daddy.

> whats the matter ... dont you like people
> dealing with you as you deal with them? awwwww

I don't act like a poopy little baby when people disagree with me.
Your "reflecting" is just "projecting."

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 12:56 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what created the big bang?

We don't know yet. But we do know it wasn't God. And this has nothing
to do with the topic, which is "Louisiana school district to teach
creationism."

> the little pin head thingy? please be
> thorough neil ...

Do you think we should teach demon possession in medical school?

Do you think we should teach astrology in astronomy class?

[e_space]

we dont know but we know? hmmmm interesting ... btw, who is we?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 2:18 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If you loved logic and reasoning you would appreciate the value of
> > empirical evidence, but you don't.
>
> Yes I do.  Some people are able to hold conflicting ideas in their
> head while they work it out and/or wait for additional evidence.

The evidence is in. Evolution is fact, Creationism is fiction.

> "The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only
> common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal
> after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the
> cosmos."

> Stephen Jay Gould

Hilarious that you would quote an evolutionary biologist to try to win
an argument for Creationism.

Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple
and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false,
and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What
could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? [Stephen Jay Gould, The Skeptical Inquirer]

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 2:35 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> some people dont need evidence to state things as fact ... i think you
> have witnessed that here already

If he's read any of your posts he certainly has.

[e_space]

okay ... you act like a fucked up old man that is being browbeaten ...
poor persecuted neily ... there, feel better now? ;-^)

i dont see people disagreeing with me because, unlike you, i am not
making unsubstantiated statements ... i disagree with you because you
seldom say anything about me that even closely resembles the truth ...
but that doesnt bother me neil ... i realize that it is just the way
you operate, so no biggy ... ;-^)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 2:55 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> okay ... you act like a fucked up old man that is being browbeaten ...
> poor persecuted neily ... there, feel better now? ;-^)

Lying about me is not evidence that you don't act out like a little
baby when people disagree with you.

> i dont see people disagreeing with me because, unlike you, i am not
> making unsubstantiated statements ...

I see people disagreeing with just about every one of your posts. And
your defining trait is making unsubstantiated statements, like "I had
several out of body experiences 30 years ago" or "if you look inside
yourself you will find 'god'." And since I have been conveying
scientific knowledge, like evolution and physics, how, exactly, is
what I've been saying "unsubstantiated"?

> i disagree with you because you
> seldom say anything about me that even closely resembles the truth ...

Except you provide endless evidence that pathological narcissism
explains your brand of theism. LIke you do in the next sentence:

> but that doesnt bother me neil ... i realize that it is just the way
> you operate, so no biggy ... ;-^)

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 2:51 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> we dont know but we know?

We know the Big Bang occurred but we don't know what caused it.

>hmmmm interesting ...

Only to a disingenuous narcissist.

> btw, who is we?

"We" is humans, collectively.

So I answered your questions, maybe you can answer mine. This will be
the third time I've asked.

[Max]

"The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all
dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[26]
Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no
sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a
situation without time.[26]

This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David
N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what
occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North
Pole.[26] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to
investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such
scenarios as the collision of branes to give a cause for the Big
Bang" (Wiki)

As with the many ongoing investigations into the unknown, science is
still studying.

Science has simply got past mythology, that's all.

Dilettantes such as yourself, apparently haven't.

On Jul 25, 11:27 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes ... and i believe in evolution of life on earth, but thats not
> what im asking ... im asking how did the pin head sized thingy that
> supposedly caused the big bang come into being? im not expecting an
> answer btw ...
>

> i am also not asking about creationism in xtian terms ...
>

[4praise]

> Hilarious that you would quote an evolutionary biologist to try to win
> an argument for Creationism.

I think it's more "ironic" then "hilarious" and btw, I am not trying
to win an argument for creationism.

I think that the parents cited in the article are acting within their
rights and I disagree with the idea that learning the Genesis account
of creation puts kids at some kind of disadvantage academically -
that's all.

> Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple
> and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false,

Isn't one of the charges against I.D. that it is not falsifiable? How
can something not be falsifiable and also be false?

[Steve in Virginia]

Don't forget alchemy in chemistry class, and magic in physics.


Steve

On Jul 25, 9:39 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 3:06 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, kids that are taught creationism (like Francis Collins) have no
> > chance of understanding science.
>

> Do you think they ought to teach demon possession in medical school?
> Do you think they ought to teach astrology in astronomy classes?

[Steve in Virginia]

Well I disagree. I have seen the damage of foisting mythology on
children as a substitute for science and reason - personally. I have
watched my two nephews, both previously inquisitive, open-minded,
outgoing young men. Both had a love of science and desire to explore
the scientific fields as a possible academic and career choices. They
both had a love of nature; a nearly insatiable curiosity of biology,
paleontology, zoology, evolution and astronomy. Summer nights were
spent peering through the telescope in my backyard; the guys collected
marine fossils in the hills of West Virginia. They toured the back
rooms of the Smithsonian and got a hands-on taste of vertebrate
paleontology and human evolutionary biology.

Sadly, their mother re-married and their step-father is a hard-line,
closed-minded, fundamentalist Christian. The boys spent too many
developmental years with him as he sent them to Jesus Camp
indoctrination for weeks at a time; pounded them with the bullshit
from the Bible; forced them to reject computers, cell phones,
television and movies. And made them read from that insidious
collections of fairy-tales hours a day. The only visage of their past
personalities - when the would come back to Virginia they come over
and watch Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings,...which are
strictly forbidden as godless, satanic and anti-Christian. Now, it's
always "Praises Jesus" this and "Hallelujah Jesus " that. Evolution
is "only a theory", the Creation Week is an incontrovertible fact. the
Noachian Flood is real, and absolutely no one can be a moral,
decent,humane person unless they fully embrace the fictional Jesus as
their personal savior.

That's the damage it does. It takes 21st century youth and rockets
them back into a worldview of the 9th century.

Steve

"Science flies you to the Moon, and religion flies you into
buildings."

[Drafterman]

On Jul 24, 5:42 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> didnt the big bang create the universe?

We don't know.

> if so, what created the big
> bang?

We don't know.

> or did it evolve from a little bang? or a no bang? just
> wondering ... ;-^)

We don't know. Don't you think it's more appropriate to tell kids when
we don't know the answer to something rather than make up shit and lie
to them?

[Drafterman]

On Jul 25, 7:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from?

Prior life forms.

> if you know
> the answer to that, then where did the stuff we evolved from
> originate?

A previous incarnation of the sun.

> did it evolve too? if so, from what?

No, evolution is a principle of living things. The sun is not living.

> has everything that
> exists today always been here in some form or another?

We don't know.

>
> scientists say that the big bang originated from something the size of
> a pin head ... where did that pin head thingy come from?

We don't know.

> did it evolve
> from nothing? if so, why and how?

It would not have been living by any biological definition we
currently have, so the principles of evolution would not have applied
to it.

> i asked some other such questions
> previously, and i find it interesting  that nobody responded to
> them ...

Maybe you need patience.

>
> its fine to scoff at creationism, but in reality, nobody knows the
> origin of "stuff".

Exactly. Which is why we should tell them that instead of pretending
that myths are true.

> this makes me wonder about skeptics who seem to
> definitively state that creationism is bunk when even science does not
> have the answers ...

Why? It's possible to know that a proposed answer is wrong without
knowing what the right answer is.

> could we refer to this as biased skepticism
> "created" from disbelief in the religious promotions of ancient men?

You could, but you'd be wrong.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 26, 5:43 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Don't forget alchemy in chemistry class, and magic in physics.

I'll add them to the list immediately, thanks. Strange how I'm not
getting an answer to those questions.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 25, 10:29 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hilarious that you would quote an evolutionary biologist to try to win
> > an argument for Creationism.
>
> I think it's more "ironic" then "hilarious"

I often find irony hilarious.

> and btw, I am not trying
> to win an argument for creationism.
>
> I think that the parents cited in the article are acting within their
> rights and I disagree with the idea that learning the Genesis account
> of creation puts kids at some kind of disadvantage academically  -
> that's all.

Which amounts to you trying to win an argument for Creationism.

> > Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple
> > and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false,
>

> Isn't one of the charges against I.D. that it is not falsifiable?

Right. Creationism isn't falsifiable, so it doesn't qualify as
science. Although I'd argue that Creationism *is* falsifiable, once
you manage to get Creationists to admit they're talking about the
Christian God.

> How can something not be falsifiable and also be false?

false –adjective (from dictionary.com)

1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.
5. not genuine; counterfeit.
6. based on mistaken, erroneous, or inconsistent impressions, ideas,
or facts: false pride.
7. used as a substitute or supplement, esp. temporarily: false
supports for a bridge.
8. Biology . having a superficial resemblance to something that
properly bears the name: the false acacia.
9. not properly, accurately, or honestly made, done, or adjusted: a
false balance.
10. inaccurate in pitch, as a musical note

Definition #9 is appropriate here (so are others); it is not properly,
accurate, or honest to try to pass off Creationism as science.

Falsifiability (from Wikipedia):

"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an
assertion can be shown false by an observation or by a physical
experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false;
rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or
experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it
means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation
alone."

We would be giving our children a false education to teach something
that isn't falsifiable in science classes.

Now will you answer my questions?

1. Do you think we should teach demon possession is medical school?
2. Do you think we should teach astrology in astronomy class?
3. Do you think we should teach alchemy in chemistry?
4. Do you think we should teach magic in physics?

[4praise]

> 1. Do you think we should teach demon possession is medical school?

M. Scott Peck thought so.

> 2. Do you think we should teach astrology in astronomy class?

No, but I don't think that is analogous. Should the "story" of
astrology be told in an astronomy class - yes.

> 3. Do you think we should teach alchemy in chemistry?

I never took chemistry, if I did I would definitely want that to be in
the syllabus :)

> 4. Do you think we should teach magic in physics?

Doesn't the "M" in M theory stand for "magic" ;)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Deidzoeb]

Zeus was just an example. It sounded like you were saying that a
person must have a proper answer or the correct answer to some
question before criticizing some other proposed answers. I don't
agree.

I don't know how the big bang came about. I don't know how the first
life formed. Creationism or "God did it" should not be the default
explanation for any question that remains a mystery.


On Jul 25, 12:28 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i dont recall using the word zeus ... or any diety ... i didnt even
> use the word spirit ... other than that, any comments on the
> questions?

>
> On Jul 25, 11:40 am, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 7:04 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > its fine to say we evolved, but what did we evolve from? if you know

> > > the answer to that, then where did the stuff we evolved from

> > > originate? did it evolve too? if so, from what? has everything that

> > > exists today always been here in some form or another?
>

> > > scientists say that the big bang originated from something the size of

> > > a pin head ... where did that pin head thingy come from? did it evolve
> > > from nothing? if so, why and how? i asked some other such questions

> > > previously, and i find it interesting  that nobody responded to
> > > them ...
>

> > > its fine to scoff at creationism, but in reality, nobody knows the

> > > origin of "stuff". this makes me wonder about skeptics who seem to

> > > definitively state that creationism is bunk when even science does not
> > > have the answers ...
>

> > You don't need to have the perfect answer to a question in order to
> > say that some proposed answers are unsubstantiated. We don't need to
> > know exactly how the first life started in order to say that there's
> > no proof it was imbued with spirit by Zeus.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 26, 12:23 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. Do you think we should teach demon possession is medical school?
>
> M. Scott Peck thought so.

Are you M. Scott Peck?

>
> > 2. Do you think we should teach astrology in astronomy class?
>
> No, but I don't think that is analogous. Should the "story" of
> astrology be told in an astronomy class - yes.

Why?

>
> > 3. Do you think we should teach alchemy in chemistry?
>
> I never took chemistry, if I did I would definitely want that to be in
> the syllabus :)

Why?

>
> > 4. Do you think we should teach magic in physics?
>
> Doesn't the "M" in M theory stand for "magic" ;)

No.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 26, 9:23 am, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

Besides Drafterman's responses, which I share, I have a couple more
questions/comments.

> > 1. Do you think we should teach demon possession is medical school?
>
> M. Scott Peck thought so.

Earlier you said that "He (God) knew that I would love logic and and
reasoning and that I might enjoy conversations with others." You may
love logic and reasoning, which is good, but here you show that you
can't employ logic and reasoning.

1. It is neither logical nor reasonable to argue that argument from
authority fallacies are not good reasons to teach demon possession if
medical school. Citing M. Scott Peck as an authority without an
accompanying argument is doing just that.
2. It is neither logical nor reasonable to argue that demon possession
is a valid topic for medical school since there is no valid evidence
that demons exist. I can understand teaching demon possession in
mythology class, however.

> > 2. Do you think we should teach astrology in astronomy class?
>
> No, but I don't think that is analogous.

Why not? There is no valid evidence that astrology is true, just as
there is no valid evidence that Creationism is true, and both are
promoted as supernatural alternatives for scientific endeavours
(astronomy and biology repspectively)..

> Should the "story" of
> astrology be told in an astronomy class - yes.
>
> > 3. Do you think we should teach alchemy in chemistry?
>
> I never took chemistry, if I did I would definitely want that to be in
> the syllabus :)
>
> > 4. Do you think we should teach magic in physics?
>
> Doesn't the "M" in M theory stand for "magic" ;)

Once again, theist humour is more revealing of a willful ignorance
than it is at all funny.

Just to make it clear to anyone who isn't inclined to
disingenuousness, "M" stands for "membrane."

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Mystic Merman]

Are they going to teach the Hindu version of the origin of the
universe too? How about the Hopi version? Or the Mayan version? Or
the Martian version? And on and on it goes? Keep fiction out of
science.

[Brock]

Actually, Mystic, that line of reasoning is fallacious. The existence
of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine.

Regards,

Brock

[Drafterman]

That wasn't his line of reasoning. It was if we teach one counterfeit
we should teach them all, or none.

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:17 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 1:56 pm, Mystic Merman <mysticmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Are they going to teach the Hindu version of the origin of the
>> > universe too?  How about the Hopi version?  Or the Mayan version?  Or
>> > the Martian version?  And on and on it goes?  Keep fiction out of
>> > science.
>>
>> Actually, Mystic, that line of reasoning is fallacious.  The existence
>> of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine.
>>
>

> That wasn't his line of reasoning. It was if we teach one counterfeit
> we should teach them all, or none.

Not true, he explicitly made an:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Regards,

Brock

[Drafterman]

On Jul 26, 2:33 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't see that he's making such a fallacy. Perhaps you could present
his argument such that it more closely matches the structure provided
in the article.

As I see it, I see two arguments:

1. Fiction should be kept out of science, Christianity is fiction,
ergo Christinanity should be kept out of science.
2. To teach one fiction but not another is inconsistent, the creation
myths of Christianity, Hindu, Hopi, et. al., are fictions, to teach
one but not others is inconsistent.

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC Mystic and good point.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:33 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 26, 2:17 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 26, 1:56 pm, Mystic Merman <mysticmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Are they going to teach the Hindu version of the origin of the
>> >> > universe too?  How about the Hopi version?  Or the Mayan version?  Or
>> >> > the Martian version?  And on and on it goes?  Keep fiction out of
>> >> > science.
>>
>> >> Actually, Mystic, that line of reasoning is fallacious.  The existence
>> >> of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine.
>>
>> > That wasn't his line of reasoning. It was if we teach one counterfeit
>> > we should teach them all, or none.
>>
>> Not true, he explicitly made an:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
>>
>

> I don't see that he's making such a fallacy.

He cited other topics, and asserted their fiction. But, as a
philosopher once said "one of these things, is not like the other". :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On Jul 26, 2:18 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> He cited other topics, and asserted their fiction.  But, as a
> philosopher once said "one of these things, is not like the other". :)

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Either your god is
just as mythical as all the other gods or it's not. Or maybe there is
some sort of God but He/She/It does not closely resemble the Christian
god.

Your absolute certainty that you not only know for a fact that God
exists, but you know for a fact which version of the Abrahamic God is
transparently unfounded.

- Bob T
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

do you think it is wise to say you know what didnt cause it, if you
dont know what did cause it?

im afraid you cant talk for the collective human race neil, no matter
how much you would like to think you can. since a large percentage of
the people dont agree with your opinion, dont you think that is rather
an arrogant statement?

[e_space]

science has not got to the truth of the matter, so the question of the
origin of the universe remains. if it was the big bang, where did that
little pin sized thingy that caused it come from? until that can be
answered, you cannot say without a doubt that something did or did not
create it. as mentioned, i have no opinion about this, cuz you know,
im just not as smart as you guys ;-^)

it seems implausible to me that there was a "time" when time didnt
exist ... of course, im not a scientist, but the possibility of such
escapes reason to me ... of course i realize that this will elicit
derisive comments ... ah well, im used to it and they dont have the
effect that those who labor to compose them desire, so what the
hell ... ;-^)

without truth, mythology survives if not flourishes. if you want to
get rid of mythology, come up with some facts to dispel it ...

to say that i believe in the biblical "myth", as you call it, is
pulling a kelsey, since again, you are making statements that have no
reflection of the truth. im not into creationism ... i have simply
asked some questions that you have failed to answer. since you cant
answer them, why do you begrudge those that have an opinion about it
that differs from yours?

[e_space]

just like the myth that the world was flat you mean? that was bandied
around as a scientific fact for years, and it was false, not even
close ... in fact, those that started to dispute the claim came under
a lot of heat from the scientific community ...

many things that science has stated as fact were later proven
false ... why do you reserve your criticism for xtianity and give
science a free pass? were scientists lying to us and "making up shit"
or were they just wrong? is it okay for them to be wrong, but not
xtians?

as you know, im not a scholar, so could you tell me what a "previous
incarnation of the sun" is?

how do you know something is wrong if you dont know what is right? i
can understand what you mean if you are taking the bible literally,
and of course, i realize that you and your ilk do that constantly ...
but as 4praise has pointed out, most xtians do not take the 6 day
thingy literally ... so why base your opinions on that?

[e_space]

well, i appreciate your opinion, but why get our panties in a knot
because some want to believe that there must be some superior "being"
that created such grandeur? i can understand angst about this if
someone is shoving their theory down your throat, as it was with mine.
i cant imagine anyone living through a more religious upbringing than
myself, but you know, i just moved on when i realized the dogma didnt
make sense to me ... its amazing how many cant seem to do that,
unfortunately ...

[e_space]

unfortunately, some fiction has always been a part of science, even if
one excludes any religious twist that some scientist may have inserted
into it ...

On Jul 26, 1:56 pm, Mystic Merman <mysticmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 26, 4:41 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> do you think it is wise to say you know what didnt cause it, if you
> dont know what did cause it?

Of course. That's part of the process of figuring out what happened -
eliminating possibilities. There is no doubt the Big Bang occured.
There is no doubt it didn't take six days. Therefore we can rule out
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Plus any other religion with a
creation myth.

> im afraid you cant talk for the collective human race neil, no matter
> how much you would like to think you can. since a large percentage of
> the people dont agree with your opinion,

It's not an opinion, it's a fact that the Big Bang took a lot longer
than six days to produce humans deluding themselves that 'god' exists
on planet earth.

> dont you think that is rather
> an arrogant statement?

Nope. Most people used to think the earth was the center of the
universe. The ones that didn't believe the evidence that it wasn't
(like the Catholic Church) were arrogant. And wrong. Same thing
applies here. It is arrogant to maintain that you know what caused the
universe (e.g. 'god') when you don't.

[Mystic Merman]

Thank you Trance Gemini. It's good to be here. And Brock, my reason
is not association fallacy, because none of these have been determined
"the genuine" as you so suggest. The association is strikingly
similar unless you happen to be someone that believes one of the many
creation "theories." If I were a Hindu, I could easily accuse someone
of the same thing. As Drafterman points out, I was simply stating
that anything that has NO scientific foundation has no business in
science.

On Jul 26, 1:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[WVProfessor]

well, i appreciate your opinion, but why get our panties in a knot
because some want to believe that there must be some superior "being"
that created such grandeur? i can understand angst about this if
someone is shoving their theory down your throat, as it was with
mine.
i cant imagine anyone living through a more religious upbringing than
myself, but you know, i just moved on when i realized the dogma didnt
make sense to me ... its amazing how many cant seem to do that,
unfortunately ...

Well here is the answer:
It burns me up-the fantasy and dishonesty that I was exposed to when I
was young. And it still burns me up the lies that we all are exposed
to today. And it burns me up that now that I have found the truth with
great effort, it is being suppressed. Then the worst thing of all is
that the liars who are responsible for these things tightly control
young minds so that they cannot get a good early understanding of
reality. They are held back ten or twenty years that it takes to rid
oneself of nutty religious ideas. I lost ten years to start with
before I became an atheist and then twenty more years to make
connections with sane folk and realize that I was surrounded by every
kind of liar and fool. These people with wrong ideas use them to
kill. Yes the two recent wars are perfect examples of killing caused
by lies. The religious folk push these lies. They are responsible.
There is plenty of reason to be mad about lies.

[4praise]

They were forced to reject computers and cell phones? Are you
exaggerating or does this guy drive a horse and buggy and have a beard
with no mustache?


On Jul 26, 6:10 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Well I disagree.  I have seen the damage of foisting mythology on
> children as a substitute for science and reason - personally.  I have
> watched my two nephews, both previously inquisitive, open-minded,
> outgoing young men.  Both had a love of science and desire to explore
> the scientific fields as a possible academic and career choices.  They
> both had a love of nature; a nearly insatiable curiosity of biology,
> paleontology, zoology, evolution and astronomy.  Summer nights were
> spent peering through the telescope in my backyard; the guys collected
> marine fossils in the hills of West Virginia. They toured the back
> rooms of the Smithsonian and got a hands-on taste of vertebrate
> paleontology and human evolutionary biology.
>
> Sadly, their mother re-married and their step-father is a hard-line,
> closed-minded, fundamentalist Christian. The boys spent too many
> developmental years with him as he sent them to Jesus Camp
> indoctrination for weeks at a time; pounded them with the bullshit
> from the Bible; forced them to reject computers, cell phones,
> television and movies.  And made them read from that insidious
> collections of fairy-tales hours a day. The only visage of their past
> personalities - when the would come back to Virginia they come over
> and watch Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings,...which are
> strictly forbidden as godless, satanic and anti-Christian.  Now, it's
> always "Praises Jesus" this and "Hallelujah Jesus " that.  Evolution
> is "only a theory", the Creation Week is an incontrovertible fact. the
> Noachian Flood is real, and absolutely no one can be a moral,
> decent,humane person unless they fully embrace the fictional Jesus as
> their personal savior.
>
> That's the damage it does.  It takes 21st century youth and rockets
> them back into a worldview of the 9th century.
>
> Steve
>
> "Science flies you to the Moon, and religion flies you into
> buildings."

>
> On Jul 26, 1:29 am, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hilarious that you would quote an evolutionary biologist to try to win
> > > an argument for Creationism.
>

> > I think it's more "ironic" then "hilarious" and btw, I am not trying

> > to win an argument for creationism.
>
> > I think that the parents cited in the article are acting within their
> > rights and I disagree with the idea that learning the Genesis account
> > of creation puts kids at some kind of disadvantage academically  -
> > that's all.
>

> > > Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple
> > > and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false,
>

> > Isn't one of the charges against I.D. that it is not falsifiable?  How

> > can something not be falsifiable and also be false?
>

> > > > > > > > > > > - Bob T
>

> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 8:27 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to J. Spaceman over on the T.O. group for posting this.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the possibility of incorporating the teaching of “creationism” in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > public school system’s science classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > During the board’s meeting Thursday, several board members expressed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school
> > > > > > > > > > > > > classrooms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion came up during a report on the pupil progression plan

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the 2010-11 school year, delivered by Jan Benton, director of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > curriculum.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Benton said that under
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

I was just throwing Peck's name in there so you might go look up his
story.

The M has not officially been defined as "membrane". Edward Witten
did not want it to be defined as "Membrane Theory". So although most
people understand the M to stand for membrane, it actually stands for
whatever you want it to (at least according to Witten).

> ...
>
> read more »

[Max]

On Jul 27, 7:56 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> science has not got to the truth of the matter, so the question of the
> origin of the universe remains.

That's what I said

if it was the big bang, where did that
> little pin sized thingy that caused it come from? until that can be
> answered,

I mentioned that too. (Do you actually read what I write?)

you cannot say without a doubt that something did or did not
> create it.

I didn't say that at all. You're putting words into my mouth. I said
that "science has moved past mythology" which it has!

as mentioned, i have no opinion about this, cuz you know,
> im just not as smart as you guys ;-^)

That may well be true and I'm sure there are smarter people than me in
this forum too.

>
> it seems implausible to me that there was a "time" when time didnt
> exist ... of course, im not a scientist, but the possibility of such
> escapes reason to me ...

Don't be concerned. I'm sure that there are many people who also don't
understand any number of complex theories too. The point being made of
course, is that science also does not know, but continues to 'nut it
out' rather than accept mythology as the answer.

of course i realize that this will elicit
> derisive comments ... ah well, im used to it and they dont have the
> effect that those who labor to compose them desire, so what the
> hell ... ;-^

> without truth, mythology survives if not flourishes. if you want to
> get rid of mythology, come up with some facts to dispel it ...

e_space, which bit of human mythology to you need dispelling. Asgard,
Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, astrology, astral travel, ghosts -
which is it? Are we to take all of this seriously in any deliberations
regarding the birth of the universe?

>
> to say that i believe in the biblical "myth", as you call it,

I didn't call it that. You did. I simply said 'mythology'.

is
> pulling a kelsey, since again, you are making statements that have no
> reflection of the truth. im not into creationism ... i have simply
> asked some questions that you have failed to answer.

No one can definitively, but science is working on it. I can't answer
the 'big question' anymore than you can or Neil or Drafty or anyone
for that matter.

since you cant
> answer them, why do you begrudge those that have an opinion about it
> that differs from yours?

I don't begrudge you of your opinion, but as this is a 'debating'
forum, I will challenge your opinion.

But do you also happen to dismiss various beliefs & concepts of how
the earth was created by any number of cultures & peoples over the
millenia.

As an example, Australian aboriginals believe (culturally) that the
earth was created according to many 'dreamtime stories'.
http://www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html

Now, as much as I respect the various cultures of peoples globally, I
cannot accept these cultural practices and beliefs as the scientific
foundation of the birth of the universe.

Can you?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 26, 8:56 pm, 4praise <4prai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was just throwing Peck's name in there so you might go look up his
> story.

That doesn't pass the giggle test. I'll continue to regard it as an
fallacy of irrelevancy on your part.

So, getting back to my question, why do you think that teaching
Creationism in science is not analagous to teaching demon possession
in medical school?

> The M has not officially been defined as "membrane".  Edward Witten
> did not want it to be defined as "Membrane Theory".  So although most
> people understand the M to stand for membrane, it actually stands for
> whatever you want it to (at least according to Witten).

But M doesn't stand for magic, because magic isn't science.

[e_space]

i was taught the six day thingy like every other xtian born child, and
stopped considering it a 6 - 24 hour day event before i became a
teenage ... it is obvious that you take the whole bible absolutely
literally and therefore quite understandable that you are incredulous
about what is written in it ... unfortunately, this does not answer
the question of whether anything was created or not ... just that you
dont believe in one man's version of it ... you can base your opinions
on an ancient book, but in reality, that does not conclusively
determine the truth of the matter ...

since more people believe in creationism than those who dont, you are
not in a position to make claims about the subject that are inclusive
of all humanity ... despite your claims that this isnt arrogant, it
really is neil, even if others are wrong ... it is arrogant to state
how others feel & think, and you have a history of being very off base
in your attempts to do so ... my suggestion is that you let people
speak for themselves and give up preaching your opinions as facts ...

[e_space]

i suggest that you wear some very strong sun blocker there prof ...
i'm sure that my exposure to religion was more intense than yours, and
i moved passed it almost immediately after moving away from home ...
it certainly didnt mess my head up or create ongoing anger as it seems
to have done to you ... it is unfortunate that your young mind was so
heavily impacted by the words of others, but you have to learn to get
over it ... are you still ticked off at your parents because you
finally realized that santa claus and the tooth fairy dont exist as
well? if you are truly a professor, i would suggest that you teach
yourself to put less emphasis on what you are told, and more on what
you have determined at your truth ...

btw, sanity isnt dependent on religious belief, or the lack
thereof ... its a mental disorder. asylums are full of people with
varying beliefs ... surprised you didnt learn this while getting your
degree ... if you have one.

[e_space]

in response to your last question .... no ... and ive made that
quite clear ... do you actually read what i write? regarding the rest
of your post ... nothing new to comment on in there ... i would just
be repeating myself ...

> earth was created according to many 'dreamtime stories'.http://www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html

[Max]

Yes, I do read what you write. So, just to recap, you're agnostic
then! Insufficient evidence to make any judgement, so one cannot make
a call!

Correct?

[Drafterman]

On Jul 26, 5:18 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not according to him. This seems more like a simple disagreement
regarding intial premises, rather than an issue of reasoning as you
assert.

So, how does his statement reflect the association fallacy?

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -