24 Sep 05
2 edits
I am mortified there is a court case in my own state, in Harrisburg
where the ALCU and some parents are sueing the school board trying
to force ID as an alternative to be taught in high schools. I would
have thought this fight to be going on in Kentucky or Ohio.
Hope the parents win, this is yet another thinly disguised attempt to
foist religion in the schools. here is the link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat is the content of the proposed curriculum?
I am mortified there is a court case in my own state, in Harrisburg
where the ALCU and some parents are sueing the school board trying
to force ID as an alternative to be taught in high schools. I would
have thought this fight to be going on in Kentucky or Ohio.
Hope the parents win, this is yet another thinly disguised attempt to
foist religion in the schools.
http://www.jus.uit.no/ansatte/somby/juoigENG.htm
24 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe you read the article backwards. The ACLU is suing to have a recent decision to include ID removed ...
I am mortified there is a court case in my own state, in Harrisburg
where the ALCU and some parents are sueing the school board trying
to force ID as an alternative to be taught in high schools. [...] here is the link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
[from the article, quoting the ACLU lawyer representing the parents:]
"If we lose this case, I suspect it will send a green light to many school districts across the country that it is okay to teach ID," he says. "If we win, hopefully it will put a break on what we view as a religious concept."
EDIT: Or I misunderstood your post...that first sentence is a bit complicated.. "some parents are suing the school board for trying to force ID..." whereas I read "some parents are suing the school board, trying to force..." Many apologies.
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSorry, that was the wrong link, in your reply. Here is one:
What is the content of the proposed curriculum?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-trouble-with-darwin/2005/09/23/1126982233685.html
They want to force "Intelligent Design" to be taught as an alternative
to evolution. They being the school board.
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by echeceroThats exactly what I hope will happen. This ID crap is not science, its
I believe you read the article backwards. The ACLU is suing to have a recent decision to include ID removed ...
[from the article, quoting the ACLU lawyer representing the parents:]
"If we lose this case, I suspect it will send a green light to many school districts across the country that it is okay to teach ID," he says. "If we win, hopefully it will put a break on what we view as a religious concept."
a thinly disguised attempt to foist yet another broken down concept
to deliberately confuse young people in an attempt to throw a wrench
into a REAL theory, the theory of evolution. ID has no real scientific
basis, one of the tenents of science is to have the ability to disprove
and those scientists attempting to foist ID on schools are more than
welcome to launch papers, show evidence that passes peer review with
the goal of disproving evolutionalry theory. The problem with ID as
an actual scientific concept is there is no way to disprove it, therefore
it is ultimately in the realm of faith, you believe it or you don't,
ID'ers won't be launching real papers to fight evolution of fair grounds
because they don't have a chance in hell of proving anything. They
just want to tear down Darwin's theory any way they can by any means
at their disposal. This is not science, however much these bozo's with
PHD's who try to push ID try to make pseudoscience into real science
with arguements, counter arguements, real archeological evidence,
radioactive dating, DNA analysis, they do none of those things, just
offer blithe words just like all pseudoscientists.
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Chinese are already snickering at the stuff taught in the USA.
Thats exactly what I hope will happen. This ID crap is not science, its
a thinly disguised attempt to foist yet another broken down concept
to deliberately confuse young people in an attempt to throw a wrench
into a REAL theory, the theory of evolution. ID has no real scientific
basis, one of the tenents of science is to have the ability to disprove
...[text shortened]... analysis, they do none of those things, just
offer blithe words just like all pseudoscientists.
USA engineers graduated last year: 30,000
Chinese: 500,000.
Of course, believing in ID will get you into Heaven, so why worry?
I mean, it's not like anyone needs any practical knowledge about dykes, storm tides or any of that garbage, now is there?
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightAnd of course don't forget the moonlanding hoaxers. I can't believe
The Chinese are already snickering at the stuff taught in the USA.
USA engineers graduated last year: 30,000
Chinese: 500,000.
Of course, believing in ID will get you into Heaven, so why worry?
I mean, it's not like anyone needs any practical knowledge about dykes, storm tides or any of that garbage, now is there?
some idiot started that one up again.
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by sonhouseIt'll pass. Just like gas.
And of course don't forget the moonlanding hoaxers. I can't believe
some idiot started that one up again.
Hey did you see the new proposals for the ships?
I was a bit disappointed at the retro-ness at first (no wings, an Apollo capsule etc.), but the more I look at it, the better it looks.
24 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightMain thing they learned: Don't put your manned vehicle at the
It'll pass. Just like gas.
Hey did you see the new proposals for the ships?
I was a bit disappointed at the retro-ness at first (no wings, an Apollo capsule etc.), but the more I look at it, the better it looks.
bottom.
Also notice they are doing it in two rocket launches.
One for hardware, one for crew.
Also its almost 8 times more expensive than the original Apollo.
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by sonhouseInflation ...
Main thing they learned: Don't put your manned vehicle at the
bottom.
Also notice they are doing it in two rocket launches.
One for hardware, one for crew.
Also its almost 8 times more expensive than the original Apollo.
Bills to pay from Shuttle?
$100 today buys me what $20 would in 1967.
24 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightMy own theory is the duplicitory God ,, half of God created the universe half of God created Time and then half of God created the first two halves and yet another half created the 3rd half.
It'll pass. Just like gas.
Hey did you see the new proposals for the ships?
I was a bit disappointed at the retro-ness at first (no wings, an Apollo capsule etc.), but the more I look at it, the better it looks.
how many more halves there really is yet to be determined because God isn't finished creating , at some point He has to create an intelligent religion ,,,,hey don't laugh with Duplicitory God half of all things are half possible
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompIf you cut God in half 64 times, you end up with a chessboard!+1 number of demi-gods?
My own theory is the duplicitory God ,, half of God created the universe half of God created Time and then half of God created the first two halves and yet another half created the 3rd half.
how many more halves there really is yet to be determined because God isn't finished creating , at some point He ...[text shortened]... ligion ,,,,hey down laugh with Duplicitory God half of all things are half possible
24 Sep 05
Originally posted by sonhouseParallel staging looks dangerous, led to both Shuttle disasters.
Main thing they learned: Don't put your manned vehicle at the
bottom.
Also notice they are doing it in two rocket launches.
One for hardware, one for crew.
Also its almost 8 times more expensive than the original Apollo.
The same thing as proposed now could have been done way back when using the Saturn V for the trans-stage and a bigger LEM and the Saturn 1B for the CSM.
Oh well ...