Textbook Indoctrination in Public Schools

[Dr Grump]

Pretty slow on the draw there del

But still too quick for you. What does that say about you?

 

[Dr Grump]

Pretty slow on the draw there del

But still too quick for you. What does that say about you?

Neg reps from you Dr. Grump?

eh, I get so many from del I won't even notice

Yeah, don't neg rep THAT often...but you're a special case....
Interesting thing about the rep system - most people say they don't give a fuck, but really they do (i know, i know, i know, there is the odd exception Dis).

However, what it does do, whether people like it or not, is lend to credibility. I for one very rarely engage somebody who shows red numbers. And if you do, just look at the discourse they spout, or is spouted about them. So, I'm kinda hoping it will eventually happen to you, too...enough trolls/ijits here without another stinking up the place...

 

[rdean]

Considering the fact that evolutionism's alter, the Gologic Column, was created before carbon dating was around. Pray tell, where did they get their numbers from?

I asked to prove their dating methods are wrong, please do so.

I read a lot about scientific methods of dating, about isochrons with guessed "starting dates", or about molten rock in the Grand Canyon giving impossible results with modern techniques, or about excess argon screwing up test results, I could tell you about K-Ar Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, how eruptions in 1949, 1954 and 1975 tested .27 to 3.5 million years old. I could talk about how radioisotope laboratories provide forms with sample submissions asking YOU how old you estimate the sample to be. Why? I could tell you about carbon dating and how the earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays and the GUESSED 14C levels contribute to flawed results. I could tell you how researchers just "throw out" samples that don't line up with their calculations. I could tell you how plants discriminate against carbon dioxide differently so scientists can just "guess & correct" manipulating tests any way they want.

But all of these variables are not that impressive to me, they just show that the data that is fed into these techniques is easily skewed. And that is why, if you don't calculate two events in history, you WILL get completely messed up results. And that is two events in the Bible. The flood would have greatly changed the carbon balance. Lowered 12C in biosphere, the 14C relative to 12C is greatly altered. But that's not the biggest cataclysm that is often overlooked.

The Bible says in Genesis 2:4:

Quote:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

From creation to the flood, the biosphere of the earth was radically different. There was no rain, there was mist that came from the ground and watered the whole face of the earth. Scientists have been using techniques that do not account for the radical change between creation and the flood. If their test results are so skewed merely from the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation, imagine what a radically different physics of the earth watering itself would do. A change that apparently caused man to age differently. If you notice, the age of man according to the Bible slowly decreased, one naturally thinks the aging process changed but that's wrong. Earlier men lived longer before the flood than younger men who were born nearer to the flood. It was the flood that decreased their life span. And after the flood when life spans were seriously shortened, it was because of a radically different mix of radiation and mist. I can't imagine what it was like before the flood but it was drastically different than today.

I simply can't understand why anyone would take stories such as "Noah's Ark" seriously. The next thing you'll be telling us the "Flintstones" is a documentary.

I've always said you people couldn't stop with "evoltuon". Next, you be telling us "God put light in transit which is why we can see stars a million light years away" or "light used to travel faster but it's been a long time so it slowed down". Come on.

Look at all the good things we get from science. From religion, we get crappy stories. I like Marvel better. It's more believable.

It's a hoot when the delusional attempt to sound all "scientific" to prove their occult imaginings.

The credulous even attempt to dream up their own "scientific phrases" such as "irreducible complexity". So fancy sounding. So, so, "pseudo scientific".

Isn't it funny that you could find thousands of volumes of data based evidence supporting scientific discovery and yet, so many people insist in believing in the writings of a primitive desert people who didn't know to wash after wiping? They deny evidence but insist their "faith" is "real".

Definition of Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Well you can quote all you want. But the one question I have is, "What would Jesus wear"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNern0k03U]YouTube - What would Jesus Wear?[/ame]

 

[JenT]

But still too quick for you. What does that say about you?

Neg reps from you Dr. Grump?

eh, I get so many from del I won't even notice

Yeah, don't neg rep THAT often...but you're a special case....
Interesting thing about the rep system - most people say they don't give a fuck, but really they do (i know, i know, i know, there is the odd exception Dis).

However, what it does do, whether people like it or not, is lend to credibility. I for one very rarely engage somebody who shows red numbers. And if you do, just look at the discourse they spout, or is spouted about them. So, I'm kinda hoping it will eventually happen to you, too...enough trolls/ijits here without another stinking up the place...

you know, I apologize.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I wouldn't argue that the pilgrims came here to worship independently of the Anglican church. What I would argue is that the Founding Fathers intended to avoid the same theocratic monopoly created by the very British government they rejected by refusing to have a state religion.


This is an oversimplification, but human remains are less "human" the deeper you dig through the earth's surface if you were to scope out a wide area. And other species' fossils seem to converge as far as their structures and appearances go. Are you arguing this isn't an observable sign of evolution?



Yeah, here we go again, we're all out to disprove god. yada yada yada.

Scientists don't care about religion. Religion exists in a metaphysical plane that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the physical realm that scientists study. Believers or not, they cannot rely on physical evidence and observation to make any kind of statement on a concept that does not dwell in a nonphysical realm such as God, or any god for that matter.

I know a man who is drop-dead genius. The government has actually sent out people to follow him around to figure out how he does what he does. (he translated satellite codes years ago, don't know what he's working on now, he'll never talk about it). He's a fascinating man, it's interesting that he has no social skills whatsoever...can't even remember huge events in his life, he's so focused on things beyond my comprehension. He's not a religious man but he does believe in God and I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God.

A lot of doctors seem to follow the same conclusions.

But ask him if he can devise a scientific theory for God's existence.

JenT's lack of response to this noted.

 

[rdean]

I know a man who is drop-dead genius. The government has actually sent out people to follow him around to figure out how he does what he does. (he translated satellite codes years ago, don't know what he's working on now, he'll never talk about it). He's a fascinating man, it's interesting that he has no social skills whatsoever...can't even remember huge events in his life, he's so focused on things beyond my comprehension. He's not a religious man but he does believe in God and I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God.

A lot of doctors seem to follow the same conclusions.

But ask him if he can devise a scientific theory for God's existence.

JenT's lack of response to this noted.

He's interesting but has no social skills? He's not religious but believes in God? I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God? There is more fable here than Samson.

 

[JenT]

But ask him if he can devise a scientific theory for God's existence.

JenT's lack of response to this noted.

He's interesting but has no social skills? He's not religious but believes in God? I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God? There is more fable here than Samson.

I said "it's interesting that he has no social skills" and it is.

Seven men were sent to follow him around to see how he does what he does because there are only four men that can do what he does in the world. I've seen pictures of the awards he's been given from organizations that you wouldn't believe if I told you. Call it whatever you want, it is what it is. The man says he believes in God because the more you study His creations, the more you can't deny it.

And Dr. Grump, if neg repping with del makes you happy... whatever floats your boat dude. (I think it just makes you look weak)

 

[del]

JenT's lack of response to this noted.

He's interesting but has no social skills? He's not religious but believes in God? I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God? There is more fable here than Samson.

I said "it's interesting that he has no social skills" and it is.

Seven men were sent to follow him around to see how he does what he does because there are only four men that can do what he does in the world. I've seen pictures of the awards he's been given from organizations that you wouldn't believe if I told you. Call it whatever you want, it is what it is. The man says he believes in God because the more you study His creations, the more you can't deny it.

And Dr. Grump, if neg repping with del makes you happy... whatever floats your boat dude. (I think it just makes you look weak)

 

[JenT]

oh del... careful, if you do that so much it will fall off

 

[THE LIGHT]

Just like to ask the people here who want creationism, shall we teach Scientology's views on psychiatry in our schools as another theory to be considered or not?

I say we teach neither. In fact, if you are a parent I suguest you don't send your children to school but rather teach them at home. The government is sterile therefore they want your children to impose their beliefs on your children.

 

[JenT]

Just like to ask the people here who want creationism, shall we teach Scientology's views on psychiatry in our schools as another theory to be considered or not?

I say we teach neither. In fact, if you are a parent I suguest you don't send your children to school but rather teach them at home. The government is sterile therefore they want your children to impose their beliefs on your children.

I shudder to think how some teachers I know would present the Gospel, but someone reminded me that God's word does not come back void which is also true.

So I really am divided on the whole issue and am not passionate about the Bible being taught in the classroom either way, even though our founding fathers insisted and paid for Bibles in classrooms. Half truths can be as bad as flat out lies so I'd rather teach the truth and Biblical basics and how to walk the walk to my kids at home anyway.

But the emptiness that is presented as fact just because a bunch of atheists can't come up with any better explanation for creation than "it all just happened" is ludicrous and an assault on religious freedom.

Teach our children verifiable facts. Teach your own children all the evolution garbage at home. Oh I forgot, atheists probably aborted their own. Easy to do to primordial goo.

 

[Ryan]

I wonder if the theory of evolution could be taught in gender neutral courses...

The "Piltdown Man" hoax would need a name change.

 

[Ryan]

I asked to prove their dating methods are wrong, please do so.

I read a lot about scientific methods of dating, about isochrons with guessed "starting dates", or about molten rock in the Grand Canyon giving impossible results with modern techniques, or about excess argon screwing up test results, I could tell you about K-Ar Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, how eruptions in 1949, 1954 and 1975 tested .27 to 3.5 million years old. I could talk about how radioisotope laboratories provide forms with sample submissions asking YOU how old you estimate the sample to be. Why? I could tell you about carbon dating and how the earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays and the GUESSED 14C levels contribute to flawed results. I could tell you how researchers just "throw out" samples that don't line up with their calculations. I could tell you how plants discriminate against carbon dioxide differently so scientists can just "guess & correct" manipulating tests any way they want.

But all of these variables are not that impressive to me, they just show that the data that is fed into these techniques is easily skewed. And that is why, if you don't calculate two events in history, you WILL get completely messed up results. And that is two events in the Bible. The flood would have greatly changed the carbon balance. Lowered 12C in biosphere, the 14C relative to 12C is greatly altered. But that's not the biggest cataclysm that is often overlooked.

The Bible says in Genesis 2:4:

Quote:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

From creation to the flood, the biosphere of the earth was radically different. There was no rain, there was mist that came from the ground and watered the whole face of the earth. Scientists have been using techniques that do not account for the radical change between creation and the flood. If their test results are so skewed merely from the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation, imagine what a radically different physics of the earth watering itself would do. A change that apparently caused man to age differently. If you notice, the age of man according to the Bible slowly decreased, one naturally thinks the aging process changed but that's wrong. Earlier men lived longer before the flood than younger men who were born nearer to the flood. It was the flood that decreased their life span. And after the flood when life spans were seriously shortened, it was because of a radically different mix of radiation and mist. I can't imagine what it was like before the flood but it was drastically different than today.

I simply can't understand why anyone would take stories such as "Noah's Ark" seriously. The next thing you'll be telling us the "Flintstones" is a documentary.

I've always said you people couldn't stop with "evoltuon". Next, you be telling us "God put light in transit which is why we can see stars a million light years away" or "light used to travel faster but it's been a long time so it slowed down". Come on.

Look at all the good things we get from science. From religion, we get crappy stories. I like Marvel better. It's more believable.

It's a hoot when the delusional attempt to sound all "scientific" to prove their occult imaginings.

The credulous even attempt to dream up their own "scientific phrases" such as "irreducible complexity". So fancy sounding. So, so, "pseudo scientific".

Isn't it funny that you could find thousands of volumes of data based evidence supporting scientific discovery and yet, so many people insist in believing in the writings of a primitive desert people who didn't know to wash after wiping? They deny evidence but insist their "faith" is "real".

Definition of Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Well you can quote all you want. But the one question I have is, "What would Jesus wear"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNern0k03U]YouTube - What would Jesus Wear?[/ame]

Many old cultures and societies were brillant, understanding the movements of celestial bodies without the benefit of advanced technology of today or utilizing engineering techniques still not understood. These cultures also had their religous beliefs, was this simply a strange dichtomy? Maybe, but on the maybe not side are very well respected authorities such as Erik von Daniken and Zachria Sitchen that believe the ancient religons were well founded.

An author that I find interesting is Jim Marrs, who described himself as a Christian, has written a bit on ancient societies and explained some of the earlier works and translations of other researchesr particularly regarding the Old Testament. Marrs also does not consider the religous beliefs of the ancient people without merit and yet Marrs maintains his Christian beliefs. Maybe the viewpoints of Christians are far more complex then what you are currently aware.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I know a man who is drop-dead genius. The government has actually sent out people to follow him around to figure out how he does what he does. (he translated satellite codes years ago, don't know what he's working on now, he'll never talk about it). He's a fascinating man, it's interesting that he has no social skills whatsoever...can't even remember huge events in his life, he's so focused on things beyond my comprehension. He's not a religious man but he does believe in God and I asked him to explain something about the universe to me once and he said the more you know, the more you cannot deny there is a God.

A lot of doctors seem to follow the same conclusions.

But ask him if he can devise a scientific theory for God's existence.

JenT's lack of response to this noted.

Actually the higher degree of education the less people beleive in God.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

do you want praying allowed in school?
and creationism to be taught?

Praying is already allowed in school. Organized prayer? No. Nobody should be forced to pray to God or any other god if they don't believe in Him. Waiting for others to have their moment of prayer would be nice though.

Teach creationism? What would be wrong with saying "There are those who believe..."

OH WAIT! they might teach Creationsm like they teach evolution as fact without a shred of proof of any animal AND THEIR KIND making the jump to any other kind of animal.

So I imagine anyone who doesn't believe in Creationism would be scared to death the same tactics might be turned on them.

"There are those who believe" in UFOs "There are people who believe" in Big Foot. "There are those who believe" in fairy tales and ghosts. I guess we should examine ghost myths because some have HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE!

 

[THE LIGHT]

do you want praying allowed in school?
and creationism to be taught?

Praying is already allowed in school. Organized prayer? No. Nobody should be forced to pray to God or any other god if they don't believe in Him. Waiting for others to have their moment of prayer would be nice though.

Teach creationism? What would be wrong with saying "There are those who believe..."

OH WAIT! they might teach Creationsm like they teach evolution as fact without a shred of proof of any animal AND THEIR KIND making the jump to any other kind of animal.

So I imagine anyone who doesn't believe in Creationism would be scared to death the same tactics might be turned on them.

"There are those who believe" in UFOs "There are people who believe" in Big Foot. "There are those who believe" in fairy tales and ghosts. I guess we should examine ghost myths because some have HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE!

Exactly! Why should we examine evolution when all it is is a fairy tale?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well then why should we teach the Bible which is FULL of faairy tales?

 

[Montrovant]

So you think everything about evolution is a fairy tale The Light? Or just parts of it? I ask because I see a lot of different ideas about what constitutes evolutionary theory and a lot of different ideas about how much data or evidence is actually involved.

 

[Ryan]

I mentioned on a earlier post that evolution by itself cannot explain the origin of modern humans, in other words "non-Darwinian" principles are required to establish any connection between "Lucy" and modern humans. The "science" is mostly fragmented hypotheses, misconceptions or outright fraud such as the "piltdown man" case.

Recently, there was a discovery of small humanoid remains found on an island near Java. The skeletal remains were titled after the island where the remains were found as "homo Floresiesis." This "hobbit" like creature stood about 3 feet tall, used advanced tools, not quite ape not quite modern man. This discovery, like the remains of "Kennewick Man" discredits the dominant "scientific" beliefs that are protected in a similar manner as any religious doctrine.

A case involving Thomas E. Lee, of the National Museum of Canada, found some highly advanced tools on Manitoulin Island on Lake Huron. The tools were shown to be at least 65,000 years old and perhaps as old as 125,000 years. Because of his find Lee was "hounded" at his job forcing him to resigned, ostracized in his field and his work was misrepresented. The tools vanished and the museum director was fired for supporting Lee.

The authors of "Forbidden Archeology" Cremo and Thompson, note that the "treatment of Lee was not a forbidden case." As they explain, "there exists in the scientific community a knowledge filter that screens out unwelcome evidence. The process of knowledge filtration has been going on for well over a century and continues right up to the present day." Or as explained by another researcher, "realize, that scientific institutions , such as the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Society, are set up by the world's elite factions in the first place to either debunk, distort or simply ignore any scientific data that tends to enlighten people about their true origins."

The field of "science" has a spotty record even though some seem to feel it is a source of absolute truth. Another example of a finding that discredits stand beliefs was the case of the "Ice Man" the remains dicovered in the Swiss/Italian Alps.

 

[Ryan]

The skeletal remains found in the soil of Colombia River, in Kennewick WA, in 1996 were initially believed to be a settler of European ancestry from the 19th century. The skull has what is clearly Caucasoid features commonly used to identify a racial category. This skull differed significantly from Mongoloid features one would expect from an "American Indian." However, lodged in the hip of the skeleton was an ancient spear that suggested to the anthropologists that the remains far older than one would expect.

A small bone fragment from the hand of Kennewick Man was radiocarbon dated to between 8400 and 9300 years old suggesting that a people of European Ancestry had lived in America far longer that originally believed. American Indian groups became very concerned at this point and moved to have the scientific study of the remains halted and buried in a traditional manner. Part of this tradition would expose the bones to elements that would destroy the scientific data that the bones would reveal.

Even worse, the Clinton Administration under some twisted interpretation on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, had the Army Corps of Engineers, dump thousands of pounds of rock and soil, as crude form concrete, on the site where Kennewick Man was found. Of course this destruction was claimed as respectful act to the American Indian culture, regardless that the race of Kennewick Man was most likely European or Middle Eastern ancestry.

How can destroying the site and preventing respectful study of a skeleton advance any culture? Clearly, these remains, what may have been discovered, was a threat to the long standing 'conventional thinking.' Why and how often does this type of thing occur?

Check the facts and call me on anything that was misrepresented.