Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Creeping Creationism in Queensland Schools!

Expand Messages
  • foghorn1980@sbcglobal.net
    ... Tim: I believe the point was missed. I m not saying science is wrong. I saying what we see could have came about by two different ways. What on earth is
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "HumanCarol" wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "foghorn1980@" wrote:
      >
      > > > Guilty of what?
      > > >
      > > Trying to shut the other side up. What is wrong with teaching some believe in a higher being that created all we see? <<
      >
      > Teach that in a comparitive religion class.
      >
      > << No religion, no names. <<
      >
      > Addressing "higher being" stuff doesn't belong in science class.
      >
      > << Just stick to that fact.<<
      >
      > It is irrelevant to what goes onn in a science class.
      >
      > >> Fear is what makes one person try to shut others up. Look at every socialist country that has existed. Look at our own political theater. It's juvenile at best. Both sides. It does not matter which is right or wrong. Freedom allows choice. Choice makes freedom, even though some choices might be bad. Some on both sides hate freedom and will advance their cause at all cost. Even murder, bombing, threats and so on. It is because they are desperately afraid.<<
      >
      > If you would like to make a case that said choices are relevant to science class, go ahead.
      >
      Tim: I believe the point was missed. I'm not saying science is wrong. I saying what we see could have came about by two different ways. What on earth is wrong with speaking of both options? I often feel fear is why some do not want both sides. That's kind of my point. As I said.....I believe in NO religion period :) Can you make the point fear is not involved on both sides?
    • kurt31416
      I ve always wondered if these constants have always been the same. You may be on to something there. This whole dark energy thing sure looks like a fudge
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I've always wondered if these "constants" have always been the same. You may be on to something there.

        This whole "dark energy" thing sure looks like a fudge factor to me. They come up with it because light from the other side of the visible Universe is a little dimmer than predicted. As if they have a clue how dim it should be. For instance, it's passing through all this "Dark Matter" that they are totally ignorant of, other than the fact it has mass/gravity. And it could be that those constants have changed in the last 13 Billion years.

        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "foghorn1980@..." wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "HumanCarol" wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "foghorn1980@" wrote:
        > >
        > > > > Guilty of what?
        > > > >
        > > > Trying to shut the other side up. What is wrong with teaching some believe in a higher being that created all we see? <<
        > >
        > > Teach that in a comparitive religion class.
        > >
        > > << No religion, no names. <<
        > >
        > > Addressing "higher being" stuff doesn't belong in science class.
        > >
        > > << Just stick to that fact.<<
        > >
        > > It is irrelevant to what goes onn in a science class.
        > >
        > > >> Fear is what makes one person try to shut others up. Look at every socialist country that has existed. Look at our own political theater. It's juvenile at best. Both sides. It does not matter which is right or wrong. Freedom allows choice. Choice makes freedom, even though some choices might be bad. Some on both sides hate freedom and will advance their cause at all cost. Even murder, bombing, threats and so on. It is because they are desperately afraid.<<
        > >
        > > If you would like to make a case that said choices are relevant to science class, go ahead.
        > >
        > Tim: I believe the point was missed. I'm not saying science is wrong. I saying what we see could have came about by two different ways. What on earth is wrong with speaking of both options? I often feel fear is why some do not want both sides. That's kind of my point. As I said.....I believe in NO religion period :) Can you make the point fear is not involved on both sides?
        >
      • Dave Oldridge
        ... is a ... For ... totally ... those ... It is not the dimness that is the problem. It is the observed FACT that the expansion of the universe is
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 10, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          > kurt31416
          > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:36 PM
          > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creeping Creationism in Queensland
          > Schools!
          >
          > I've always wondered if these "constants" have always been the same. You
          > may be on to something there.
          >
          > This whole "dark energy" thing sure looks like a fudge factor to me. They
          > come up with it because light from the other side of the visible Universe
          is a
          > little dimmer than predicted. As if they have a clue how dim it should be.
          For
          > instance, it's passing through all this "Dark Matter" that they are
          totally
          > ignorant of, other than the fact it has mass/gravity. And it could be that
          those
          > constants have changed in the last 13 Billion years.

          It is not the dimness that is the problem. It is the observed FACT that the
          expansion of the universe is accelerating when, if there was nothing
          accelerating it, it should be decelerating. In other words, this particular
          observation is the exact opposite of what was originally expected. So "dark
          energy" HAS to exist in SOME form in order to fuel that acceleration that we
          OBSERVE.


          --

          Dave Oldridge
        • kurt31416
          Dave, if the dimness is the only scientific evidence we have, it Is the problem if we are discussing science, not faith. And it s bizarre that you would thing
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave, if the dimness is the only scientific evidence we have, it Is the problem if we are discussing science, not faith.

            And it's bizarre that you would thing how dim light should be after traveling across most of the observable Universe is FACT.

            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Oldridge" wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
            > > [mailto:creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            > > kurt31416
            > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:36 PM
            > > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creeping Creationism in Queensland
            > > Schools!
            > >
            > > I've always wondered if these "constants" have always been the same. You
            > > may be on to something there.
            > >
            > > This whole "dark energy" thing sure looks like a fudge factor to me. They
            > > come up with it because light from the other side of the visible Universe
            > is a
            > > little dimmer than predicted. As if they have a clue how dim it should be.
            > For
            > > instance, it's passing through all this "Dark Matter" that they are
            > totally
            > > ignorant of, other than the fact it has mass/gravity. And it could be that
            > those
            > > constants have changed in the last 13 Billion years.
            >
            > It is not the dimness that is the problem. It is the observed FACT that the
            > expansion of the universe is accelerating when, if there was nothing
            > accelerating it, it should be decelerating. In other words, this particular
            > observation is the exact opposite of what was originally expected. So "dark
            > energy" HAS to exist in SOME form in order to fuel that acceleration that we
            > OBSERVE.
            >
            >
            > --
            >
            > Dave Oldridge
            >
          • Dave Oldridge
            ... problem ... traveling ... What is clearly dim here is your reading comprehension. Maybe your god, the father of lies, ate your brain! -- Dave Oldridge
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
              > kurt31416
              > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:38 AM
              > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creeping Creationism in Queensland
              > Schools!
              >
              > Dave, if the dimness is the only scientific evidence we have, it Is the
              problem
              > if we are discussing science, not faith.
              >
              > And it's bizarre that you would thing how dim light should be after
              traveling
              > across most of the observable Universe is FACT.

              What is clearly dim here is your reading comprehension. Maybe your god, the
              father of lies, ate your brain!


              --

              Dave Oldridge
            • kurt31416
              If you don t mind, Dave, I ll just skip over your pure 100% ad-hominem posts. Which, the way it s starting to look, is gonna be all of them.
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 11, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                If you don't mind, Dave, I'll just skip over your pure 100% ad-hominem posts. Which, the way it's starting to look, is gonna be all of them.

                --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Oldridge" wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                > > [mailto:creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                > > kurt31416
                > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:38 AM
                > > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                > > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creeping Creationism in Queensland
                > > Schools!
                > >
                > > Dave, if the dimness is the only scientific evidence we have, it Is the
                > problem
                > > if we are discussing science, not faith.
                > >
                > > And it's bizarre that you would thing how dim light should be after
                > traveling
                > > across most of the observable Universe is FACT.
                >
                > What is clearly dim here is your reading comprehension. Maybe your god, the
                > father of lies, ate your brain!
                >
                >
                > --
                >
                > Dave Oldridge
                >
              • Dave Oldridge
                ... posts. ... I do tend to attack idiocy when it insists on being recognized as something else. Feel free to feel offended when your attachment to it is
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 12, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                  > [mailto:creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  > kurt31416
                  > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:12 AM
                  > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Creeping Creationism in Queensland
                  > Schools!
                  >
                  > If you don't mind, Dave, I'll just skip over your pure 100% ad-hominem
                  posts.
                  > Which, the way it's starting to look, is gonna be all of them.

                  I do tend to attack idiocy when it insists on being recognized as something
                  else. Feel free to feel offended when your attachment to it is revealed.
                  When you clearly cannot read my plain English posts for meaning (or are
                  deliberately misrepresenting what I say), then you DESERVE the scorn you
                  get,

                  I will still feel free to read and comment on any nonsense you post. The
                  sad thing is that you sometimes actually have a point but got so wound up in
                  attacking ME with YOUR ad hominem crap that you stopped even reading what I
                  posted long before you posted this.

                  Good luck with that policy. It will not get you any respect you fail to
                  actually earn.


                  --

                  Dave Oldridge
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.