Free Republic

Focus here, if you can.

The question that celmak asked you in post 96 was this....

“Fantastic; the you should have no problem with government schools including the pro and con about Evolution, correct? “

What does your *answer* (for lack of a better term) about teaching different religions in a comparative religions class, have to do with what he asked?

"You evos have it in your minds that creationists are stupid and think that they won't see that they are being handed a worthless scrap with that proposal."

Since you are in the irrational lash-out mode I doubt that any of the following will get through to you (it didn't the last umpteen times I posted it);

1) I am a devout Catholic. I believe that God created the entire universe and everything in it.

2) I believe that, as eloquently stated by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) that science and theology are compatible and that the bible tells us THAT God created the universe, it does not seek to tell us HOW.

3) God used all of the science He created in the process of creation including using evolution and natural selection in the process of introducing life into the dynamic universe He created.

4) I believe that man is different from the rest of the animals kingdom because we have souls.

5) I am a life long conservative Republican who did not vote for Nixon's reelection because he was too liberal.

6) I educated my children in parochial schools because I do not agree with the curriculum of the public schools. I am not content to simply bitch about what was being taught to my children. If you have a problem with what is being taught keep your kids out and take it up with your dumbass neighbors who continue to elect the liberal school board, local, state, and federal officials.

7) If you believe it is OK to teach Christian creation in schools if a majority of the people in a district happen to be Christian then you shouldn't be surprised when something else is taught when a majority believe differently (such as secularism, Hinduism, Islam, atheism, etc.)

8) It is just plain stupid or ignorant to categorically refer to a group called "evo's" as some sort of homogeneous conspiracy.

Do a google search of public school textbook suppliers.

Houghton-Mifflin is one and I found this....

http://www.eduplace.com/science/hmsc/6/a/cricket/cktcontent_6a42.shtml

There are also listings of public school textbook publishers to give you an idea of where to start.

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

http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Shopping_and_Services/Publishers/Education/Textbooks/K_12/

You could also talk to friends and find out if you could look at their kids public school textbooks. That seems like the easiest way to me to get hold of a copy to look through.

The use of terms like "evos" and the word "scientist" as pejoratives and referring to them like they are some kind of monolithic organization is nothing more than YEC rhetoric.

How stupid. What would you have creationists refer to evolutionists and scientists as then?

In order to make a fair assesment of whether the infomation you've provided should have been included I need to know what all the information is, and exactly how much was included in those text books.

Go look it up for yourself instead of making unreasonable demands for information that you'll never be satisfied with.

Cause if there's one thing I've learned about evos, and you're one of the worst offenders, is that they will demand, demand, demand information and always demand more because no matter how much is provided, it's never good enough for an evo.

Who appointed you king of the world that you think that everyone has to answer to you and you think you get to dictate what others can do? We don't need, or want, your approval, or control.

If the parents want creation and ID taught in public schools along with evolution, they should have it.

If the textbooks contain errors, they should be corrected, regardless of how much space is devoted to the topic.

You can build a compelling case for or against just about any theory based on evidence from artifacts by using every possible interpretation of the data from either side - pro or con - and disregarding the possible interpretations of the same data from the other side.

Which is exactly what evos do when they ignore and gloss over the difficulties and inconsistencies of the ToE and refuse to acknowledge the fraud and lies perpetrated in the name of the ToE, be it in textbooks or the lab. Evos are just about as dishonest as the AGW folks in pushing their agenda.

The fact that creation/I.D. is not science would preclude it from being taught in a science class.

Unless you also want Alchemy, and Astrology included in the science curriculum

How much space in the text book was given to "Lucy"?

That's totally irrelevant. If they teach it wrong, they teach it wrong.

It's not OK if there's only a *little* space addressing it and not OK if there's a lot.

That's situational ethics and just a justification to excuse it.

No. I have no problem with the dozens of creation myths nd stories being introduced and discussed in history, philosophy, theology or comparitive religion classes, but not in science classes.

Except for the minor little detail that everyone is aware of that there is no way that something like that is going to fly in the public schools. It isn't happening now and it's not going to happen in the future.

You evos have it in your minds that creationists are stupid and think that they won't see that they are being handed a worthless scrap with that proposal.

You're proposing taking everything and offering what amounts to nothing thinking that they'll be duped into being satisfied with it.

Not going to happen.

Control of the public schools belongs in the hands of the parents and local school boards, not the federal government.

IF they see fit to allow the teaching of creation and ID in addition to evolution, that's their business. It's their kids and their money.

Advocating for big government control of education is a liberal position and it is currently ruining education.

If evos don't like the thought of their kids hearing about creation and ID, they can have their children opt out of that portion of the lesson instead of suing all opposition into oblivion under the guise of *science*.

If that's not acceptable, they can homeschool or start their own private God-free schools and send their kids there at their own expense.

That's the option that evos always throw up in the faces of creationists who object to evolution only being taught, and if it's good enough for creationists, it's good enough for evos.

I have yet to have one evo provide me with one iota of evidence that teaching creation and ID in addition to, or even (as past history demonstrates) instead of evolution. There is simply NO evidence that it would hurt science education in this country.

It's rather amusing that evos, who appeal to the virtual MOUNTAINS of evidence in support of the ToE, totally ignore the evidence demonstrating that teaching creation and ID will not harm science education and still advocate for evolution only in the public schools.

Why do evos consider evidence important, even critical when it suits them, and ignore it when it's inconvenient?

"Why didn't you just answer the question instead of changing the subject and deflecting attention away from yourself?"

I had already answered that I did not support the teaching of theological matters in science classes, but did not object to creation being discussed in history, theology or philosophy classes. When the answer was rejected and the question repackaged I asked his/her question was limited to the Christian creation or if it was to include all creation myths.

celmak:"Fantastic; the you should have no problem with government schools including the pro and con about Evolution, correct? "

Natural Law: Do you have a problem with the Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Druid, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Animist versions of creation being taught as well and being given equal merit with science and the Judeo-Christian version?

Funny, NL, it doesn't seem that your reply to celmak had anything to do with the question he asked. Why didn't you just answer the question instead of changing the subject and deflecting attention away from yourself?

I suppose I should be flattered that you published a book about my recent posts but apparently all you learned was the ctrl X, ctrl V functions. Too bad you didn't have someone around to explain them to you before you reacted.

Yes you did. And only evidence against Lucy, and have tried to get me to draw conclusions given only that information.

Yes, Lucy is only one piece of evidence; but if you cannot see that this one piece is unacceptable then you will not see anything else as unacceptable; one step at a time.

Do you think that Lucy is an acceptable piece of evidence, especially after it has been brought to you the facts about her?

Metmom, GodGunsGuts,

You probably know this already but I have a perfect example of an Evo tactic by Natural Law here, in reverse order for better reading, and I think it can be used as an example to others:

It all began when Natural Law doubled up with an Evo supporter:

• Tale of Two Creation Films Denied First Amendment Rights on Darwin's Anniversary

Friday, November 27, 2009 10:54:39 AM • 98 of 119 Natural Law to celmak

"Fantastic; the you should have no problem with government schools including the pro and con about Evolution, correct? "

Do you have a problem with the Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Druid, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Animist versions of creation being taught as well and being given equal merit with science and the Judeo-Christian version?

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies

Friday, November 27, 2009 12:56:44 PM • 100 of 119 celmak to Natural Law

Do you have a problem with the Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Druid, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Animist versions of creation being taught as well and being given equal merit with science and the Judeo-Christian version?

Not at all, let all religions stand on there own in the debate. Do you agree with this?

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies

• Friday, November 27, 2009 1:44:58 PM • 102 of 120 Natural Law to celmak

"Do you agree with this?"

No. I have no problem with the dozens of creation myths nd stories being introduced and discussed in history, philosophy, theology or comparitive religion classes, but not in science classes.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies

Friday, November 27, 2009 6:05:13 PM • 102 of 119 celmak to Natural Law

No. I have no problem with the dozens of creation myths nd stories being introduced and discussed in history, philosophy, theology or comparative religion classes, but not in science classes.

OK, for now I'll leave out anything "religious"; give me any substantial fact in any book in any government school that even discuss the problems with evolution.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies

Friday, November 27, 2009 7:21:20 PM • 107 of 119 Natural Law to celmak

"give me any substantial fact in any book in any government school that even discuss the problems with evolution."

Let's begin with the name given; its the Theory of Evolution. A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations where absolute proof is not present. What "problems" would you discuss?

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies

Saturday, November 28, 2009 7:51:20 AM • 109 of 119 celmak to Natural Law

Let's begin with the name given; its the Theory of Evolution.

Government schools may call it a theory but they teach it as fact.

A theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations where absolute proof is not present.

If Evo's would only preach that it is not absolute proof!

What "problems" would you discuss?

See line 101; do you think Lucy should be seen as a empirical observation of Evolution in any textbook?

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies

Line 101 set here:

Friday, November 27, 2009 1:03:48 PM • 101 of 119 celmak to tacticalogic

As long as the "pro and con" are based on objective, scientifically supportable arguments, that is correct.

Great, we are in agreement; but then why is there no debate in government schools? You will never see in a text book the following:

The truth about "Lucy:"

• Lucy, as mentioned before, has many detractors, it is a wonder why she is even mentioned as an example of Evolution; Lucy being important because of her “ability” to walk upright. First, Lucy’s pelvis was in forty different pieces when found. When they finally put it together, they found it did not fit the model of an upright hominid, so they shaped the “distortion” to fit the correct model (Donald Johanson, Ansestors, pgs. 64-65, 1994).

In a conversation on a NOVA special, Johanson states the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html

We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.

Second, Brian Richmond and David Strait (eminent paleoanthropologist) of George Washington University identified similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy:

“A UPGMA clustering diagram … illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers (Richmond & Strait, Nature404(6776): 382, 2000 ).”

Third, Charles Oxnard (Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC) reinforces the fact that Lucy is not in between ape and man, that the uniqueness of Lucy makes her an improbable candidate for the Evolutionary line of man (Charles E. Oxnard, Professor Biology & Anatomy, USC, AMERICAN BIOLIGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May ’79, pg. 274). In 2001, Dr. Meave Leaky (part of the great Leaky family) states:

“It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely related to Lucy or K. pltyops. There is too much missing from the fossil record since then (Cohen, Who’s your daddy? New Scientist, pg 5, March 2001).”

Then there is the trouble of trying to retract what Richard Leaky, renowned anthropologist, stated in 1983 that the scull of Lucy was so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made out of plaster of paris (The Weekend Australian, magazine section, pg. 3, May 1983),” let alone what kind of species she belonged to. To this date, no true scientist could tell you that a real “transitional” fossil, or “missing link,” has been found. Scientists freely admit that there are still too many gaps in the fossil record (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980).

Facts about “Lucy” from Evos, none from non-Evos; and this is just a start.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies

Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:39:28 AM • 112 of 119 Natural Law to celmak

"If Evo's would only preach that it is not absolute proof!"

The use of terms like "evos" and the word "scientist" as pejoratives and referring to them like they are some kind of monolithic organization is nothing more than YEC rhetoric.

Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is taught in school don't send your kids there. Do like I did and send them to parochial schools where you can manage what they are taught and not taught.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies

Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:19:47 PM • 118 of 119 celmak to Natural Law

The use of terms like "evos" and the word "scientist" as pejoratives and referring to them like they are some kind of monolithic organization is nothing more than YEC rhetoric.

Your condescension is vapid; I could take being called a YEC the same way. I have not used the word scientist; as a pejorative unless it is combined with "elite", "elitist" or "elitism" if I'm not mistaken. In any case, Evo is shorthand, so is Creo, ID'er, Big Banger or BB's, etc.; live with it, I do with your inferring belittlement.

Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is taught in school don't send your kids there.

Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is being stated by Creo's, BB's, ID'ers then don't read or write in Free Republic.

Do like I did and send them to parochial schools where you can manage what they are taught and not taught.

The problem is not whether or not what is liked or disliked in schools, stop avoiding the problem. You asked, What "problems" would you discuss? I set down the first problem, what is your answer to it?

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies

Saturday, November 28, 2009 4:36:38 PM • 119 of 119 Natural Law to celmak

"Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is being stated by Creo's, BB's, ID'ers then don't read or write in Free Republic."

Here is an idea for you (you could use a few). If you don't post nonsense I won't have to refute it.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies

Sunday, November 29, 2009 9:31:40 AM • 121 of 121 celmak to Natural Law

Here is an idea for you (you could use a few). If you don't post Nonsense I won't have to refute it.

THE END

LOL! Hope everyone had a good a lauph at this read with Natural Evasion, er, rather Natural Law as I did.

;)

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies

Here is an idea for you (you could use a few). If you don't post Nonsense I won't have to refute it.

THE END

LOL! Hope everyone had a good a lauph at this read with Natural Evasion, er, rather Natural Law as I did.

;)

I just gave you the evidence against Lucy;

Yes you did. And only evidence against Lucy, and have tried to get me to draw conclusions given only that information.