Copernicus was wrong -- bible says so -- "religious right" biblethumpers believe it -- this is not a joke

On 17 Feb, 22:51, starburst wrote:
John Savard thoughtfully opined:

in the same sense, from a First Amendment perspective,
*even when it is empirically valid*.

I am not just talking about the freedom of Creationists to speak. I am
talking about their freedom not to have their children indoctrinated
by their opponents. That *is* a valid complaint, although this is lost
in the debate over their demands to indoctrinate everyone else's
children.

They can always opt out of the system, John. But I agree with you in
principle.



You don't understand the difference between "edcuation" and
"indoctrination."

Sure he does. What you don't understand is constitutional law. On what
legal and constitutional grounds can you force someone to have their
children taught something that categorically disagrees with their
religion? Religion is constitutionally protected. Science and education
are not.

Indoctrination is what you get in church.

Whatever.

I know, "..here's a school that teaches science seperately from
religious studies. I don't agree with this, but I'll send my kids
there anyway". ??!
Send them to another school, just ask your priests for permission and
do it.
Or, educate them at home, or move to a fundamentalist state, you'll
love it.
jc

This all started with the 1960 movie Elmer Gantry

Chris L Peterson wrote:

I hope my kids never have a science teacher who thinks that way. When
kids in my classes bring up creationism, I tell them their beliefs
aren't supported by evidence. Period. There is no room for "cultural
sensitivity" in science. You teach the theories, you teach what evidence
allows us to place a certain level of confidence in those theories, when
there is more than one major theory you teach them all. If any of those
theories conflict with non-scientific beliefs held by some students,
tough. It's science class.

That's one way to answer that question. Another way is "This might be a
good time to pause and tell you about a really amazing thing called
'the scientific method,' which is the way in which scientists..." My
personal experience tells me that curt dismissal is not a good weapon
in the battle for kids' hearts and minds.

I personally find Christianity a deeply offensive and dangerous belief
system. But in a religious studies class, I'm not offended by what is
taught; that's the point of the class. I can study it without believing
there is any truth. Similarly, there is no reason for anybody to be
offended by what is taught in science, whether they choose to believe it
or not.

Do you also find astronautics an adulterous and murderous science?

It pains me to say this -- truly -- but you have beaten your old record
for pedantry, rudeness, smugness, condescension, and wrongness -- and
quite a record it was! It is ironic that one who condemns religion at
every opportunity so frequently speaks /ex/ /cathedra/ in his posts.
This is not the only subject on which you have written in this forum
without displaying a shred of knowledge about the matter, if you catch
my drift.

Your penchant for jumping into so many threads (is there anyone here
who replies in more threads than you do?) and framing your replies as
condescending pronouncements of Irrefutable Truth does nothing to
further the aims of this group as I understand them. I can no longer
post a legitimate technical question on my amateur astronomy pursuit in
any forum in which I know you are a participant (this forum or any of
several Yahoo groups) because I know that you will reply and I know
/how/ you will reply -- with a condescending, dogmatic, and Irrefutable
Pronouncement -- while I am seeking a variety of answers based on
others' experience with the equipment that I am using and/or the
technique that I am trying to master. If I had wanted Irrefutable
Truth, free of doctrinal error, I might have simply asked Daniel J.
Min.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Feb 17, 11:47 am, "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
Evolution is just a theory as is intelligent design. Both should be taught
in schools. How many of you (over 45 folks) had to worry about kids bringing
guns to school when you were growing-up? Why do we have this problem today?
Did you ever ponder that question? The answer is simple, however, it will
most likely offend the staunch atheists in this group. It is due to the lack
of spirituality of today's youth. Kids today worship the MTV Rapper as God
rather than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many of today's youth have no
moral values. Teaching them that they are the descendants of Monkeys only
reinforces their already warped view of the world, lack of spirituality,
self-centeredness, and lack of respect for other folks. I don't have any
children, but most of my friends and family send their children to Christian
Schools because they teach creationism rather than evolution and impart
moral values. The lack of spirituality that is currently rampant in this
country was predicted by the Bible. Open your bible and more importantly,
"open your mind to the concept of faith" and you will be enlightened.

Regards,

-mij


Evolution is a THEORY, that is it has been observed and tested in the
real world, Creationism is not a THEORY and it CANNOT be tested or
observed in the real world. Creationism proponents CLEARLY STATE that
it is an attempt to force their warped view of Christianity on
everyone else. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict-XVI have repeatedly
stated there is no contradiction between evolution and the bible,
rather evolution merely demonstrates the greater glory of God and his
love for us. Like me, true Christians have opened our minds to faith
and are amazed each day by the wonders of our GOD which why we are
scientists. It is the faithless that want to impose they very small
minds on God and others. They want to pick the speck from our eyes
while having a boulder in their own.

As far as "Many of today's youth have no moral values" Maybe because
they have watched the Xian leaders and their followers long to
recognize that your real goal is "Me and Mine above all else". They
have watched respected elders do everything but be a Christian and so
they reject your beliefs

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:46:10 -0500, Davoud wrote:

That's one way to answer that question. Another way is "This might be a
good time to pause and tell you about a really amazing thing called
'the scientific method,' which is the way in which scientists..." My
personal experience tells me that curt dismissal is not a good weapon
in the battle for kids' hearts and minds.

I'm neither curt nor insensitive in class. The scientific method is
discussed continuously, even when we aren't talking about science. If
someone brings up a non-scientific belief, the belief itself is never
challenged- only the reasons that it is "non-scientific".


It pains me to say this -- truly -- but you have beaten your old record
for pedantry, rudeness, smugness, condescension, and wrongness -- and
quite a record it was!

Then you have misread my post. Probably something to do with reading it
on a Mac g.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Here is some fine advice from the Irish FAQ at
http://www.geocities.com/welisc/ifaq/part01.html#5

5) What is a troll? What should I do when I see one?

A troll is an attempt to start a prolonged flame war (a fierce
argument with rude, personal insults). A troll is usually an
article that is so outrageous, insulting and stupid that you
feel you have to reply. You can often recognise it because it
is crossposted to several groups (very few articles posted to
more than three groups are worth reading). If it is posted by
someone from whom you have never seen posts before (especially
if they are using an anonymous account), it is likely to be a
troll. Trolls will often flagrantly violate basic netiquette.

If you see a troll, the one thing you must not do is post an
angry reply. If you do, the troller will have succeeded. It
is better to ignore the troll. Trolls crave attention and
responding to them encourages them to keep posting.
soc.culture.irish has at times been overwhelmed with trolls
posting racist or sectarian rubbish that people naturally
wish to refute. Unfortunately, most trolls have an IQ only
slightly above room temperature and attempting to enlighten
them is an exercise in futility and frustration. Life is
too short to waste it arguing with these morons. The huge
waste of bandwidth caused by a troll's posts and responses
to them destroys much of the enjoyment to be had from
reading s.c.i. Arguing with a troll will not make them go
away but only encourage them to continue polluting the
newsgroup. The only effective way to get rid of a troll
is to ignore it. This admonition is considered so important
that it has been enshrined in the Lex Cunninghamensis,
which states:

**************************
* Do not feed the trolls *
**************************

If you have a killfile facility (sometimes called a filter)
in your newsreader, you can set it to ignore future posts
from the troll. This facility is named BlockSender in Outlook
Express. A good newsreader can also be set to "kill" a subject
(ignore future posts with that subject line).

See the FAQ about trolls at http://digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html
for more information.

http://www.geocities.com/welisc/ifaq/part01.html#5

TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT
TROLL ALERT

Troll? Naaaaa......
Sounds more like and issue for a tissue. Whaaaa Whaaa! Whaaa!

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ****ING NUT CASES
AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS IN AMATEUR ASTRONOMY@!?

It's not just astronomy. These people are walking the streets, getting
elected to school boards, Congress and even the presidency.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

John Carruthers wrote:

Sure he does. What you don't understand is constitutional law. On what
legal and constitutional grounds can you force someone to have their
children taught something that categorically disagrees with their
religion? Religion is constitutionally protected. Science and education
are not.


I know, "..here's a school that teaches science seperately from
religious studies. I don't agree with this, but I'll send my kids
there anyway". ??!
Send them to another school, just ask your priests for permission and
do it.
Or, educate them at home, or move to a fundamentalist state, you'll
love it.
jc


Don't toss *me* in there, son. I think that one of these issues is
philosophical and one is scientific. My personal religious views have no
problem with evolution or the scientific method. So my kids are gonna do
well on their science tests. Or I'm gonna clobber them.

As an aside, it is worth pointing out that neither of the major
Christian religions that identify their clergy with the title "priest"
(ie Anglicans and Catholics) have problems with evolution. It is rather
elements of the congregational tradition, eg baptists and pentacostals,
that can't reconcile their reading of the Bible with evolution. Go
figure. Democracy is clearly dangerous.