How can anyone support Obama?

[romanov]

I still don't decide that curriculum however. You can just point the people you want in that direction.

Symantics

Yes. This is a fact both legally, and by definition.

Again, just because it is legal does not mean it is right.

If you define indoctrination, by meaning teaching children actual you know..SCIENCE.

How does that quote go? I think it is in Hamlet. Something about there being more in heaven and earth than books can explain.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Symantics

A literal fact. *shrugs*

Again, just because it is legal does not mean it is right.

Legal reality as in, every time the issue has come up in court. The courts have recognized that Creationism does not meat the criteria to be considered a legitimate science. It's not, and all the crying and gnashing of teeth and being [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]y about it is not going to change that.

How does that quote go? I think it is in Hamlet. Something about there being more in heaven and earth than books can explain.

Then send your kids to private school so they can have non science forced upon them.

 

[lemmings]

How does that quote go? I think it is in Hamlet. Something about there being more in heaven and earth than books can explain.

Oddly fitting for Creationism since its based on ignoring the 'heaven and earth' and opting for an explination based on a book.

 

[romanov]

A literal fact. *shrugs*



Legal reality as in, every time the issue has come up in court. The courts have recognized that Creationism does not meat the criteria to be considered a legitimate science. It's not, and all the crying and gnashing of teeth and being [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]y about it is not going to change that.



Then send your kids to private school so they can have non science forced upon them.

A sign some one has lost an argument is when they can not carry on a conversation without vulgarities.

My wife and I home school and I would bet that our children have a better science education than there peers. Not only do they learn about science they learn the limitations of science as well as the dangers.

 

[romanov]

Oddly fitting for Creationism since its based on ignoring the 'heaven and earth' and opting for an explination based on a book.

You lost me on that one. Could you flesh that out a bit more?

 

[SiderealExalt]

A sign some one has lost an argument is when they can not carry on a conversation without vulgarities.

My wife and I home school and I would bet that our children have a better science education than there peers. Not only do they learn about science they learn the limitations of science as well as the dangers.

I call it like I see it. If you want to complain that there is some sort of conspiracy against Creationism(which isn't a science) that sounds awfully [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]y. But then I've never understood why people get so upset about FACTS.

 

[romanov]

I call it like I see it. If you want to complain that there is some sort of conspiracy against Creationism(which isn't a science) that sounds awfully [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]y. But then I've never understood why people get so upset about FACTS.

Then why do you get so upset that science can not explain everything. Creationism is just as much science as evolution.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Then why do you get so upset that science can not explain everything. Creationism is just as much science as evolution.

Which shows just how much you know about science. Ie. not much.

 

[lemmings]

You lost me on that one. Could you flesh that out a bit more?

Creationism is based on a litterial interpretation of a book that says that the Earth is 6000 years old, humans came into existance at the same time as all the other species, and just about everything was wiped off about 4000 years ago when it rained too much one month.

The heavens (sky) shows us that the Universe is far older than 6000 years and is closer to 13 billion years.

The Earth shows us that humans have not always existed and many creatures came into existance and eventualy died before us and that there hasn't been a massive flood.

 

[lemmings]

Then why do you get so upset that science can not explain everything.

If science could explain everything, I'd change my degree from physics to one of the humanities.

Creationism is just as much science as evolution.

Creationism is NOT science because it does not present an argument which can be tested and there is plenty of evidece that disproves its individual components.


Which version of Creationism do you follow: ID(God or ET), OEC(13B universe or 5B Universe), YEC (6000 or 10k years) or some other variation?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Creationism is just as much science as evolution.

LOL. That gave me a little chuckle.

 

[revanneosl]

You need to define adequately educated citizenry. So far since the fed has taken over the education system adequately educated seems to mean barely literate.

Anyway, at the same time of racial segregation the education levels of both white and black students whose parents choose to allow the children to continue their educations was of a better quality than today. I have been told countless times that a 4 year college degree is roughly the same as a high school education of the schools before the seventies. It seems we have thrown the baby out with the bath water in this country.

And no, I do not believe in racially segregated schools. But, there is some good evidence in favor of separating boys and girls in school. At least enough to think about it anyway.

The decline in the quality of high schoold education is, in a way, attributable to Federal intervention, though not in the way you are implying. "Back in the day" our nationd didn't even attempt to provide a High School education for everyone. High School was just what its name implies: "high" school - a high educational attainment for those who had shown previous aptitude.

But then, as a nation, we decided to attempt a glorious experiment: providing a High School education for everyone. Since some people are simply more capable than others, having the entire population in the mix necessarily dragged the average down. We can debate whether it's wise public policy to attempt post-literacy education for an entire population, but first we have to get past the myth that it's about local vs. federal control.

Here's a chart:

 

[romanov]

Which shows just how much you know about science. Ie. not much.

I know science can not explain the jump from a non-living mass to a living one. All the theories have done is move the problem from this planet to another, or from carbon based to silicone.

Science to me has done more to prove the existence of G_D than it has disproven it. The complexities on the plant alone are mind boggling.

Science and religion both require a leap of faith. So in that way creationism is just as much science as evolution.

 

[DZoolander]

I know science can not explain the jump from a non-living mass to a living one. All the theories have done is move the problem from this planet to another, or from carbon based to silicone.

Science to me has done more to prove the existence of G_D than it has disproven it. The complexities on the plant alone are mind boggling.

Science and religion both require a leap of faith. So in that way creationism is just as much science as evolution.

As a believer - I have to say here that your inability to explain something does not logically mean that it is inexplicable or that it's the result of some divine machination.

The scientific method *is* more sound than most religious thinking - because it's entered into with the attempt to theorize based upon observation. You see a behavior - you attempt to ascertain why things occur that way - and then you test to see if your theory is true. No theory is ever complete - and all are subject to being thrown out the window if it can be demonstrated they are false or missing something.

Religious dogma is *not* based upon anything anywhere near that sound. For 99.9% of the people running around out there - they believe because their mommies told them (because their mommies told them) that there was some grand sky fairy out there that made everything the way it is...and it's "proven" in some random book of stories that very few of them have actually ever read.

There's no observation involved. There's no testing. There's no challenging. There's no critical eye. In a lot of ways - it's like the Santa Claus story - except nobody revealed to you when you were 8 that it was just a feel good story. He's making a list, and he's checking it twice. He's gonna find out who's naughty and nice... ya know? lol

You really can't compare the two.

 

[romanov]

The decline in the quality of high schoold education is, in a way, attributable to Federal intervention, though not in the way you are implying. "Back in the day" our nationd didn't even attempt to provide a High School education for everyone. High School was just what its name implies: "high" school - a high educational attainment for those who had shown previous aptitude.

But then, as a nation, we decided to attempt a glorious experiment: providing a High School education for everyone. Since some people are simply more capable than others, having the entire population in the mix necessarily dragged the average down. We can debate whether it's wise public policy to attempt post-literacy education for an entire population, but first we have to get past the myth that it's about local vs. federal control.

Something about that chart seems a bit off considering the drop out rate in the more populated areas.

It also doesn't address the issue of quality of the education. My daughter has a friend who attends a government school here in Fairbanks. The child is in the gifted programm and to be honest she is dense. She is not an idiot, but I really do not get the gifted part. I mean if this child is gifted compared to her peers. Then we have some slobbering idiots around here.

Any rate I have a ton of stuff to do today so I am out.

 

[DZoolander]

...and the thing that's wonderful about science is that it's impartial. If/when it finds God - it will have no problems admitting that God exists. The purpose of science is *not* to disprove God. That's an important thing to remember.

The fact that science does *not* begin as one of it's postulates that God exists is *also* something to be admired.

 

[tulc]

I know science can not explain the jump from a non-living mass to a living one. All the theories have done is move the problem from this planet to another, or from carbon based to silicone.

Science to me has done more to prove the existence of G_D than it has disproven it. The complexities on the plant alone are mind boggling.

Science and religion both require a leap of faith. So in that way creationism is just as much science as evolution. (emph. added)

...well, no not really. Science says "We don't know how life started yet, but we can search for new facts to add to what we already know until we can figure it out." Creationism on the other hand says "We don't have any proof but we believe this is what happened." One view says lets look for more facts and the other view says we've already found the answer that satisfies us. See the difference?
tulc(believes in asking questions)

 

[romanov]

As a believer - I have to say here that your inability to explain something does not logically mean that it is inexplicable or that it's the result of some divine machination.

The scientific method *is* more sound than most religious thinking - because it's entered into with the attempt to theorize based upon observation. You see a behavior - you attempt to ascertain why things occur that way - and then you test to see if your theory is true. No theory is ever complete - and all are subject to being thrown out the window if it can be demonstrated they are false or missing something.

Religious dogma is *not* based upon anything anywhere near that sound. For 99.9% of the people running around out there - they believe because their mommies told them (because their mommies told them) that there was some grand sky fairy out there that made everything the way it is...and it's "proven" in some random book of stories that very few of them have actually ever read.

There's no observation involved. There's no testing. There's no challenging. There's no critical eye. In a lot of ways - it's like the Santa Claus story - except nobody revealed to you when you were 8 that it was just a feel good story. He's making a list, and he's checking it twice. He's gonna find out who's naughty and nice... ya know? lol

You really can't compare the two.

Ok, you are comparing religious dogma to science. Maybe that is what you don't get. Science is an observable method. I get that. You come up with a hypothesis, you think about it. You come up with a theory. You test it. You throw together a paper and a bunch of people with nothing better to do than read long boring papers rip it apart. You then hrrumph them and keep going on your merry little way. I get that.

To be honest with you, religious dogma, I don't really care about. I personally have never really said to anyone exactly how I believe on this whole creationism thing in these forums. You might be astonished to read that I don't really believe in a one day creation of Adam. There are, in fact, books left out of the modern Bible that support a conclusion I came to long ago that G_D and the angels created man over time. Personally, I feel at some point scientists have to believe in evolution. I mean sure there is proof of evolution. But at some point they have to BELIEVE in it. There are just some things they cannot explain. And I have read some theories of evolution by noted scientists who actually hint at the possibility that evolution was guided.

I can't exactly remember the words the guy used but you could see that he was doing his best to advance a theory of guided evolution that didn't include God. He bent over backward to not leave the impression that he was saying that God guided evolution but the gist of his paper was that some force did guide evolution. ( This is where some one will demand a source. Well though. I read way to much stuff both on line and off to remember where I read something. So, take my word for it or do not.)

I mean, think about the intricate balance of protiens and I think it's 19 or 20 of them that have to be in perfect balance in order for a single celled organsm to move under it's own power. That just happened by accident? The eyeball? That happened by accident? We can both agree that Barry Manilow is an accident of evolution but that's about the only thing I can think of.

Anyway I got a bunch of stuff to do. Talk latter.

 

[rahmiyn]

Creationism is based on a litterial interpretation of a book that says that the Earth is 6000 years old. . .

Actually, it came into existence in the 17th century, when Bishop Ussher used the Bible's genealogies to calculate the approximate age of the earth. Before then, and in ancient Hebrew texts, the age of the earth was not in conflict with what science is finding today.

 

[Gracchus]

I know science can not explain the jump from a non-living mass to a living one.

Life is chemical process, not substance. Life follows the same laws of chemistry as non-life. Some chemistry is organic chemistry, some organic chemistry is biochemistry, and some biochemistry is biology.
When you look closely, the line between life and non-life is pretty blurry.

All the theories have done is move the problem from this planet to another, or from carbon based to silicone.

Panspermia is not the only theory of life's origin on Earth.

And:
"sil·i·cone (s

l

-k

n

) n.
Any of a group of semi-inorganic polymers based on the structural unit R2SiO, where R is an organic group, characterized by wide-range thermal stability, high lubricity, extreme water repellence, and physiological inertness and used in adhesives, lubricants, protective coatings, paints, electrical insulation, synthetic rubber, and prosthetic replacements for body parts."


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I suspect you meant silicon, the element. Because its electron configuration is similar to that of carbon it can form long chains and complex structures like carbon. I have heard it suggested that it might provide a basis for life, as carbon does.
I had not heard it mentioned that it had any connection to terrestrial abiogenesis.

Science to me has done more to prove the existence of G_D than it has disproven it. The complexities on the plant alone are mind boggling.

A boggled mind is not evidence for the existence of god.

Science and religion both require a leap of faith. So in that way creationism is just as much science as evolution.

Science proposes an explanation and tests it against observations. Science does not make leaps of faith. Science doubts, tests, observes, and reason.

Religion proposes an explanation, and when that explanation is not born out by observations invokes mysteries, magics, and miracles. This, religious folk call "faith".

You may have trouble understanding this, if your mind is easily boggled.